The following program is a PBS Wisconsin Original
production. >> Personal safety is top
of mind for current and would be elected officials
after another threat breaches security of the
president and state regulators put their foot
down, saying Wisconsinites will not subsidize data
center energy costs. [MUSIC]
I'm Frederica Freyberg tonight on here. And now
the candidates running for governor say if they fear
for their personal safety inside Wisconsin politics
redistricting rulings as advocates celebrate new
protections from data centers, we check in with
the Citizens Utility Board and local research into
treating severe mental health with psychedelics
gets a boon from an executive order. It's "Here&
Now" for May 1st. [MUSIC]
>> Funding for here and Now is provided by the Focus
Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.
>> As the political tenor in America continues to
deteriorate, threats against politicians have
increased, some only online, others very much real and
in person. As part of our continuing series on the
most important issues of the election for governor
"Here& Now", senior political reporter Zac
Schultz asked the leading candidates about this topic.
>> Running for governor is a huge commitment, but in
the current political environment, it means
candidates and their families also need to
consider their own personal safety when deciding to run.
We asked the leading candidates whether that
factored into their decision to enter the race,
and if they have concerns for their personal safety.
>> We are in a politically charged environment and
it's kind of hectic out there. I had, you know,
somebody I had threats before that were, you know,
made to me. It's not a fun thing to experience. And,
you know, it's always back of mind. But I can tell you
like I'm, I'm focused on doing what's right. I'm
going to continue to stay focused on what's doing
right. Violence is absolutely a problem. It's
in it's an issue. It's something that we cannot
ignore. But I can't let that slow me down either.
>> No more than how dangerous it is to drive
here from western Wisconsin on an icy day. You know,
certainly it's disappointing to see the
level of. Noise that is created around politics
these days. And Wisconsinites are looking
bring that noise level down. That's what I'm going to do.
And, you know, despite security concerns, despite
things like that, I have the energy to be in this
conversation. That's what Wisconsinites need. I don't.
>> I love Wisconsin and I believe in Wisconsinites,
and I believe that they want us to have an open
dialog for politics. And so I do not have any concerns
about my personal safety. >> It's disappointing that
political violence has become such a frequent
occurrence, and I'm fortunate to have a
campaign team and a community and volunteers
across the state that I think are going to remain
supportive. And I, I do not have concerns for my
personal safety. >> I guess I still believe
that campaigns are about ideas, and I absolutely I
know that there are going to be people who disagree
with me and disagree with me on the campaign. You
know, I hope and expect that they're going to do
that honorably. I am more than willing to take pot
shots that people have online. And, you know, and
there's a lot of that. And, and I, you know, I have to
have a thick skin around that, but I hope that we're
at a place and I hope we can demonstrate in
Wisconsin that we do things civilly.
about it a little bit, especially in light of the
assassination of Charlie Kirk and, of course, the
attempts on President Trump's life in 2024 where
he almost lost his life. So we do think about it more
at this point, but I just I try to tune it out because
I'm going to do my job and. Wisconsinites are almost
everyone is really good about this stuff, whether
I'm knocking on doors, seeing people, whatever.
People are almost always respectful. And I think
it's important for us to be out amongst the public, and
I'm not going to stop doing that just because some
people have their lives threatened.
huge uptick in political rhetoric and political
violence happening all across this country. And
quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of it. It is
unfortunate that we're seeing the level of
violence just for being able to deliver on behalf
of those that we represent every single day. And so,
you know, whether you're a Republican or Democrat, we
need we really need to end the political rhetoric in
this violent rhetoric that has been out there and
really focus on how do we make lives better for those
that we represent? >> I do, and it's something
that I, I take seriously, my staff and my family take
it seriously. And I think it's, it's very unfortunate
that we have political leaders at the very top of
our system whose use of violent rhetoric and
violent actions are making us all less safe. And as
Americans, you know, every one of us lives with the
specter of gun violence. Every time your kid walks
out the door to school, every time you go to church
or a concert, you have to think, is this going to
become a mass shooting event? We have to do so
much more to help all Americans be safe and free
from violence. And there's a lot that states can do to
make that true. >> Reporting from Madison.
I'm Zac Schultz for Here and Now.
>> On this week's Inside Wisconsin Politics, we hear
Zac Schultz, along with Wypr political reporter
Shawn Johnson, rich Kremer and Anya van Wagtendonk dig
into why there are so many Democratic primary
candidates in the midterm elections, what party
support for a particular candidate does or doesn't
say about the campaigns and examples of such races.
Seizing grassroots efforts, won for governor and won
for the third Congressional District.
>> In the very recent past, you had Democrats and
liberals very wary about jumping into primaries.
What's changed? Zac? >> I think the biggest
thing that's changed is the Democrats see more
opportunity to win some of these over the past 16
years, basically in the Scott Walker era. On when
the maps didn't favor Wisconsin and perhaps the
political climate didn't favor candidates statewide,
there was a concern that a primary just took up too
many resources that were limited, mainly money and
time, and the threat that if they went negative
against each other, it really hurt their
opportunity to win statewide. Since Democrats
have gotten on a roll in 1 a lot of these races for
governor, AG, state Supreme Court, and they've got
better maps, they see more opportunity. And so there's
more options for people to get in, because the primary
doesn't look quite as devastating.
>> Since I'm naming stuff today, this is the don't
tell me what to do primary, an important distinction in
Democratic primaries. We've got a couple examples here
today. Let's start with one in the third Congressional
District. Rich, I've heard a lot about this district
because it's our most competitive congressional
district. Derrick Van Orden is the Republican incumbent.
I've heard a lot about Rebecca Cooke, the
Democratic challenger who has outraised him recently
and seems to be getting a lot of attention. There is
a primary there who's running.
>> So the primary is between Cooke, who's an Eau
Claire Democrat raised on a dairy farm in the county
and, you know, has done some political consulting
work, fundraising work for Democrats in years past.
But now she's Bakke. She's really portraying herself
as kind of of the district, you know, born and bred
Wisconsin, etc. Republicans are trying to, you know,
focus the attention on her consulting work, etc. The
other Democrat is longtime Eau Claire City Council
member, former council president, until just
recently, Emily Berge of Eau Claire. And she she's
portraying herself as the grassroots choice in this
race. And national Democrats came in and
started sending resources, staff, etc. back in
February to Cooke's campaign. And Berge said,
well, that's pretty dirty. You know, she essentially
said D.C. shouldn't be deciding who is the
Democrat to face Van Orden. It should be the people of
Eau Claire. And just anecdotally, when I'm
walking through the city, I don't see a lot of Cooke
signs. In fact, I don't remember seeing any. But I
see a whole bunch of Berge signs. So this being one of
the more, if not the most populous areas in the third
district, maybe that makes a difference. But in terms
of resources, Cooke is way, way, way ahead of Berge in
all the fundraising reports that I've seen.
>> Zac, do you get the sense that this is, you
know, a competitive primary here?
>> It could be it really depends on how much the
primary voters pay attention. And that's
always the issue in some of these primaries is name
recognition makes a big deal. That's why the
National Party comes in and puts resources behind Cooke.
It's not necessarily that they like her more. It's
they think she has the better chance to win in the
fall and get her moving. Now. It's the old mentality
we talked about at the beginning of the show of
why didn't Democrats do primaries in the past? It
takes resources, it can get ugly, it can get negative.
It could hurt the candidate. Going into the fall. I ran
into Berge when she was campaigning with Francesca
Hong for governor in La Crosse. They were doing an
event at the same bookstore. And it's not a coincidence
that while we were talking to them, they were talking
about going and seeing them at the next stop. And there
there is a kind of thematic fit with that campaign of
more grassroots, more from the bottom up and running
against party types who tell us who our candidates
should be. Parties like to dictate sometimes who the
candidate can be so they can focus resources.
Sometimes that does run up against a wall, which is
why your title for this Don't Tell Me What to Do,
does fit, because there are candidates who are going to
say no. Let the people decide. People have to pay
attention, though. there are plenty of
examples in the recent past, particularly among
Republicans, where you come out of a battle tested
primary and you are wounded. And it did not help them
very much in the general election. I think in 2018,
Tony Evers came out of a battle tested primary and
was a little bit out of money. So there is a risk
to it, but it does also get attention, I guess is the
thing that it does for sure. >> I think another piece of
this too, is that it's very easy to kind of present a
unified front as a party when you're in the minority,
because it doesn't really matter, right? You don't
have power. And so we might know that kind of behind
the scenes, the further left Democrats and the more
centrist Democrats don't then they all come forward
and kind of vote in alignment. And so now what
we're seeing, because there's a little bit more
of a sense that perhaps they could actually win
things and gain power. There's also, I think, a
little bit of a fight for what will the Democratic
Party in Wisconsin look like, vote like, will they
be further left? Will it be more of a Hong kind of
situation? Will they be more moderate, more kind of
aligned with national Democrats? And so I think
we're seeing that fight kind of play out or tension
play out in a lot of these primaries.
projection shows Wisconsin will lose more than $2
billion in sales tax revenue because of an
exemption written into the 2325 state budget for data
centers, a break designed to promote economic
development. Three years later, the state is
swimming in new data centers with consumer
concerns about water and energy usage. But in a win
for consumers, the Wisconsin Public Service
Commission just ruled that existing electricity
customers should not pay a single cent to subsidize
the service of data centers. The ruling is also a major
win for the Citizens Utility Board, which fought
on behalf of customers. Executive director of Cub
Tom Content joins us now with more. And thanks very
much for being here. >> Oh, great to be with you.
>> So you've said that this case was the most
significant one the cub has ever been involved in. So
when the PSC ruled, what was your reaction?
>> I was I was frankly surprised. I, I've had a
good feeling that we were going to get some of what
we asked for in terms of significant changes to what
the proposal was. But we got the vast majority of
our changes or changes that addressed our concerns.
They really the commissioner really sent a
message, even though they can't control every cent,
they sent a message that every dollar needs to be
accounted for and every. As they, as one of the
commissioners put it, every every cent should be paid
for by the tech companies. >> So how does the
proliferation of data centers in Wisconsin engage
consumers in a way that other rate cases may not
have? >> It's it's I think I
think it's a combination of fear of concerns about
rising energy costs, because we've already come
into this period with rising energy costs that
have risen at rates higher than inflation, paired with
the the local community reaction. And and basically
the Wisconsin reaction, as noted in the Marquette
polls to data centers. And, you know, the the Marquette
poll that just 'came out showed a lot more clarity
about where Wisconsinites stand about data centers
than it showed about who's running for governor. And
they they by a 2 to 1 margin, people said that
the cost of data centers outweigh the benefits. And
I think I think layered into that is, is fear of AI
and, and what it's what what the the impacts of AI
are on the economy and society down the road. I
think that plays into it. >> Too, because I
understand that thousands of people kind of came to
Cub and said, yes, we we want the PSC to rule in
this way. >> Thousands of people went
to the PSC hearings or PSC hearings or submitted
comments online. And so those could have been
people in Milwaukee, people around the state, we
energies customers and others. I mean, frankly,
the tech companies and the utility were saying the
right things all along that they were going to meet
their demand or that they were going to play their
own way. But for us, the devil was always in the
details, and we found some loopholes and just areas of
concern where we thought the risks that customers
were still going to be on the hook were too, too high
with what was what was what was the proposal was.
>> So does does the ruling mean that power company
customers will not be on the hook at all for the
giant energy needs of these data centers?
>> They went as far as they could. They ran into a
couple areas where they couldn't go as far as they
wanted, because certain things were out of the
state's control. And what I mean by that is if if
people may have seen that at the white House, the
tech companies were at the white House pledging to pay
their own way and signed a ratepayer protection pledge.
Now, that was more of a, you know, an optics
document, a a rhetoric document. And it was
non-binding, but it actually committed the tech
companies to pay their way for all the network
upgrades, which which to us sounds like the power lines,
right. And the big power lines. And the fact is, our
power line company, American transmission
billion of infrastructure to feed these data centers,
is actually regulated out in Washington, D.C. So the
state Public Service Commission couldn't change
that. And so as a result, the the the commissioner
sent a message that they could only go so far, but
they called on HTC and the We Energy's parent company
to make changes that would protect customers from,
frankly, billions of extra costs tied to these
projects. >> What else stood out for
you from the PSC on this case?
>> I think what stood out is, is that the the. The
fact that the data centers will be on the hook for
100% of the new power plants. There was one
scenario where other customers, small businesses,
homeowners, renters would be on and other businesses
would be on the hook for up to 25% of the cost of new
power plants. And that's not a small number. We
energies has already gotten approval for over almost 2
billion in projects and has another 6 billion in the
queue. So a quarter of that, a quarter of that would
have been a couple billion dollars on the hook that
customers would have been responsible for. So. So
that was a big the biggest change and one that we
really appreciated. >> All right. Well, we
appreciate you joining us today on this Tom Content.
Thanks so much. >> Thank you.
>> Two animal rights groups announced a deal with a
breeding and biomedical testing facility to
purchase 1500 of their dogs. This comes following a
failed but high profile attempt by activists to
break into the facility and liberate the animals.
Earlier this month, Ridglan Farms was investigated for
animal abuse but was not charged on the condition
they agreed to give up their breeding license.
Next week on our program, we'll speak with the
special prosecutor in that case. But the animal rights
group says more needs to be done to end what it says is
unnecessary. Biomedical testing on animals.
>> This system of testing is broken. It's been broken
for a very long time. The data show that in more than
90% of cases where a new drug passes muster, in ten
years of animal tests, when it then goes to human
clinical trials, it fails more than 90% of the time.
You know, the NBA playoffs are happening now. If you
had a free throw shooter who hit one of every ten
free throws, that person, that player would be on the
bench. Why is a 92% failure rate considered some sort
of success? >> An executive order from
President Donald Trump calls for fast tracking
research and access to psychedelic medicines for
treatment of mental health disorders, with $50 million
in funding going to state governments for the
research into the treatments, the FDA
pinpointed three companies, including Madison based
Usona Institute, for its new drug Application for
psilocybin in major depressive disorder. Usona
says the designation is reserved for therapies
addressing critical national health priorities
and unmet medical needs. The work of UW-Madison
researchers will be part of Usona application. The
center for Psychedelic Research has been looking
at the promise of psilocybin and other
psychedelics with human research subjects at its
dosing lab on campus, we met with Professor Paul
Hutson there to learn more. >> Psilocybin kind of works
by itself. We're here primarily to protect the
subject, reassure them if they get anxious.
>> So we are sitting in a room where patients or
research subjects are administered psilocybin.
What happens. >> When somebody is coming
in for a psychedelic dosing session with psilocybin,
for example? They come after about 3 or 4 hours of
preparatory counseling and intention setting with the
therapists that are going to be sitting with them.
They'll come in, they'll lie down on the sofa. After
taking the capsule of psilocybin, and then the
two therapists, which would be sitting in the chairs
that we're in facing the person on the sofa, would
watch and attend them, reassure them if that was
something that needed to happen with a hand on the
shoulder, perhaps. And then after about six hours, they
would be evaluated to make sure that they were safe to
go home. They'd go home in the care of someone that
they trusted that could make sure that they got
home safely. And then we bring them back the next
day, typically, and have a 1 or 2 hour debriefing and
ideally bringing them back 2 or 3 more times. We think
that that debriefing session, that ability to
work with those people with whom they've got a
therapeutic alliance is critically important to
really maximize the effects of the psychedelic
treatments. And one of the reasons why we don't expect
that recreational use of psychedelics is going to be
anywhere near as therapeutically effective
as the more controlled, somewhat more complex work
with the therapists. >> What do they experience?
>> That's hard to describe, and it's going to be
different for every individual. And frankly,
it's probably different for every medication that we're
using. There's a lot of hallucinogen effects like
seeing sounds and abnormal visions of patterns in the
carpet, patterns in the wall. But they also
describe a noetic, all knowing sense of knowledge
that they've experienced something very profound. On
the other hand, they typically describe it as
being ineffable, very difficult to explain.
Sometimes they feel like they've come into the
presence of a deity of God. Others feel a very, very
alone, like they're in a canoe in the middle of the
ocean on a very dark night and feel very isolated. But
then on the other hand, they that same person might
then be visited by friends and deceased relatives. At
least that's what some would describe. And so it's
really hard to pin down a particular experience for
any individual. >> What is the promise of
treatment with psychedelics for things like depression
or PTSD? >> It's amazing, quite
honestly, what the effects of one dose of psilocybin
seem to have. We see some really remarkable results
in individuals with depression, sometimes
treatment resistant depression, and that can
occur within 24 hours. And it seems to be durable in
many individuals. Not all. Not everybody responds like
that. Just like any medication. We also see in
our own work with methamphetamine, but also
other institutions looking at alcohol, tobacco,
cocaine, some really remarkable rapid responses
in terms of decreased uses of these drugs of abuse. I
think that one of the things that really
surprised me when I first got into this was that the
psilocybin and LSD treatments are not
addictive, that I was part of the this is your brain
on drugs generation. And so that was a surprise. But
it's really important to to make 'it clear that we do
screen the individuals that we bring into our studies.
And I think it's going to be important to screen the
individuals that come to us after drug approval.
>> What was your reaction when you learned of this
executive order? That kind of gives the FDA fast track.
>> So the executive order does several things, but
the thing that I think is going to have the greatest
impact on our work and the psychedelic industry as a
whole, is that it is going to accelerate the rate at
which the FDA can evaluate drugs like this. And in
particular, three companies got these national program
vouchers. That is going to accelerate even more. The
speed at which the FDA is reviewing their
applications for approval. The concern that I have,
quite honestly, is that the FDA will approve this
sooner than we were expecting, and we don't
really have the capacity in terms of rooms, but
especially the therapists that are going to attend
these individuals to accommodate the demand
that's going to occur when that happens.
>> And this would be happening presumably at
research centers across the country.
>> Once the drug is approved by the FDA, it
does not have to be at a research center. I think
that they are right now the ones that are best
positioned to accommodate that. But frankly, it's
going to be both an academic and a private for
for profit enterprise as well. People will need to
go to some of these clinics that will charge them out
of pocket for the experience. The the
personnel demands to have the two therapists sitting
in the room for eight hours is going to be one of the
most critical things that we have to deal with. How
are we going to, in a system where mental health
professionals are hard going to expand that
capacity to meet the demand from the psychedelic
industry? >> And Steil, this is
really exciting news. I imagine for someone like
yourself. >> It is really exciting.
Yes, we have participated in the development of
psilocybin from about 12 years ago, and some of our
work is actually going into the the new drug
application that Usona Institute is going to be
working on. So we're really excited that we can be part
of that. But helping other companies, but also looking
at the mechanism of why this happens. We've got
several studies that were just asking the
foundational question, why does it work and how does
it work? And how can we perhaps make it better?
>> For more on this and other issues facing
Wisconsin, visit our website at PBS
wisconsin.org and then click on the news tab.
That's our program for tonight. I'm Frederica
Freyberg. Have a good weekend.
>> Funding for "Here& Now" is provided by the Focus
Fund for Journalism and
friends of PBS Wisconsin.