Progressive Thinking

Senator Smith writes about the new broadband expansion maps recently released by the FCC showing levels of internet connectivity throughout the state.

MADISON - January 13^th is an important date for the growth of our state’s future. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is asking for consumer feedback on their new preliminary internet connectivity maps, and the second Friday in January is the deadline for the public to submit their input.

These maps will determine the amount Wisconsin is awarded in the next round of funding through Congress’s Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. Depending on how we do in this survey, anywhere from $700 million to $1.1 billion may come our way to expand high-speed internet in Wisconsin.

It’s pivotal for the FCC to have accurate information. Mapping will determine where and when we invest money. The BEAD program prioritizes households and businesses that are completely “unserved” by high speed internet at a speed of at least 25 megabits per second (Mbps) while downloading and 3 Mbps while uploading. The project also prioritizes projects that lack high-speed internet, defined as speed of at least 100 Mbps while downloading and 20 Mbps while uploading. It should also be noted that latency speeds in excess of 100 milliseconds are also considered unserved – this is oftentimes the case with satellite internet users.

In the days when telephone and electricity lines were being strung throughout rural America, the saying was that nobody is connected until everyone is connected.

This holds true today when it comes to internet access. We are doing an increasing amount of our shopping online. Healthcare providers are using the Internet to reach patients through telehealth. Educators are finding new ways to engage students using online tools, and students are relying on internet access for their studies and conducting online research. Our world is becoming smaller thanks to the Internet, with family and friends never too far away.

Connecting every household and business with fiber is the goal, and will require a combination of public and private investment. However, maps showing areas of need in the past have been terribly flawed.

These maps group homes and businesses into census blocks, which are generally based on landmarks such as roads, rivers and sometimes property lines. If one property in that area could have access to high speed service, the map will show that everyone in that census block is covered.

This faulty information caused serious issues when money was allocated and distributed for broadband projects. Bringing connectivity to these internet deserts depends on our ability to know where they are.

By submitting a challenge to the preliminary internet maps, you can help the FCC better understand levels of internet connectivity. It’ll help them determine where infrastructure funding can be best utilized. The broadband maps are online at BroadbandMap.FCC.gov. There, you can look up your address and help the FCC know what type of internet is available at your location.

If your home or business is not listed or if there are other inaccuracies about the location, you can report this by clicking “Location Challenge” in the top right corner.

You can find more information about how to submit a location challenge here: https://help.bdc.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/10475216120475-How-to-Submit-a-Location-Challenge-

You also want to make sure that the speeds you are receiving match the speeds reported by your internet service provider. It is easy to check your internet speeds. If you do an internet search for “Run Speed Test,” the top result will be a 30-second speed test, where you will be able to click a button and test your upload and download speeds.

If they don’t match what is listed for your location, make sure you have your building selected on the map. To the right you will see the provider(s), the type of internet service provided to the location, and the reported upload and download speeds offered at that location. If they differ from the speeds you have measured, click “Availability Challenge” in the top right corner.

You can find more information about submitting an availability challenge here: https://help.bdc.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/10476040597787-How-to-Submit-an-Availability-Challenge

Check your internet speeds today, and if they differ from what is reported on these preliminary maps, send in a challenge. Better mapping will guide better distribution of funds and lead to increased access to high-speed internet for everyone.

Judicial races in Wisconsin are supposed to be nonpartisan, but over the last 15 years they have become increasingly partisan. Read how the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce tilted the scales.

MADISON - Judicial races in Wisconsin are supposed to be nonpartisan. Technically, they still are. And ideally, that’s the way they should be.

Our judges and justices should be above partisanship. They should be impartial arbiters of the law, not beholden to one party or another -- or one ideology or another.

But over the last 15 years, this ideal has fallen by the wayside, as our judicial elections, especially for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, have become increasingly partisan.

This stems largely from a decision by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce to start throwing huge amounts of money into the races for Wisconsin Supreme Court, and then for liberal groups to respond in kind.

The push by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce was part of a coordinated move by big business groups around the country to throw themselves into state court races. It also reflected the decades-long strategy by the Koch Brothers and other rightwing forces to take over every lever of political power.

“State Supreme Court elections attracted record sums from business interests,” noted a 2007 report from the Brennan Institute and two other groups.

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor put it bluntly that year:

“In too many states, judicial elections are becoming political prizefights where partisans and special interests seek to install judges who will answer to them instead of the law and the constitution.”

It wasn’t always this way in Wisconsin. For many years, the Wisconsin Supreme Court had a tremendous national reputation, and outside money played little, if any, role in who got on the court.

For instance, in 2003, in the race between Pat Roggensack and Ed Brunner, outside groups spent all of $27,200 on independent expenditures.

But look what happened in 2007, when Linda Clifford challenged Annette Ziegler. In this one, outside groups spent $3.1 million – more than 100 times what they spent in 2003. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce itself shelled out $2.2 million for Ziegler, and the rightwing Club for Growth spent $400,000 for her. The liberal Greater Wisconsin Committee spent $400,000 for Clifford.

Then in 2008, outside groups spent $4.8 million when a guy named Michael Gableman challenged Louis Butler, the first African American ever to serve on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Gableman campaign ran hideously racist ads against Butler and was aided by $1.8 million in expenditures by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. The Greater Wisconsin Committee countered with $1.5 million, and Club for Growth poured in $500,000.

The 2009 race between Shirley Abrahamson and Randy Koschnick was an anomaly, with outside groups spending only $577,000. (Abrahamson had raised a lot of money on her own and seemed unbeatable, so the outside groups stayed away, by and large.)

In 2011, in the throes of the anti-Walker protests, the outside groups jumped back in, spending $4.5 million in the race between David Prosser and challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg. Here, the Greater Wisconsin Committee spent $1.7 million for Kloppenburg, with Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce spending $1.1 million for Prosser.

In 2013, things calmed down a bit, with outside groups spending $1.2 million in the race between Pat Roggensack and Ed Fallone. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce spent $500,000 in this one for Roggensack. Club for Growth spent $350,000 for her. And the Wisconsin Realtors Association spent $207,000 for her.

The 2015 race between Ann Walsh Bradley and James Daley was another anomaly, with only $171,000 in outside spending, with all but $2,000 of that was from the Greater Wisconsin Committee in favor of Ann Walsh Bradley. (Like Abrahamson in 2009, Bradley had raised a lot of money on her own and most outside groups held their fire.)

In 2016, JoAnne Kloppenburg challenged Rebecca Bradley, and outside groups spent $3.43 million. Here, the leading rightwing spender was the Wisconsin Alliance for Reform, which spent $2.6 million on behalf of Rebecca Bradley. The Greater Wisconsin Committee spent $710,000 for Kloppenburg.

In 2018, outside groups spent $2.8 million in the race between Rebecca Dallet and challenger Michael Screnock. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce spent $1.2 million on behalf of Screnock. The Greater Wisconsin Committee spent $940,000 on behalf of Dallet.

In 2019, outside groups spent $4.5 million in the race between Brian Hagedorn and challenger Lisa Neubauer. In this one, the Greater Wisconsin Committee spent $2.3 million, with the Republican State Leadership Committee spending $1.25 million.

Then in 2020, outside spending reached a record high of $5 million in the race between Jill Karofsky and incumbent Dan Kelly. The liberal group A Better Wisconsin Together spent $1.9 million. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce spent $1.1 million. The Republican State Leadership Committee spent $897,000. And the Koch Brothers’ group, Americans for Prosperity, spent $479,000.

We can expect the April 2023 race to once again break a record, as Pat Roggensack is retiring, leaving three liberals on the court and three conservatives. So whoever replaces her in that race will determine the ideological balance on the court.

That noise you hear is the avalanche of outside money that is about to pour down on Wisconsin.

Audio Commentary

Senator Smith writes about how the dialogue has changed between candidates, elected officials and constituents.

MADISON - As I reflect on this year and the campaign that just ended last month, I must thank the voters who showed up and cast ballots. I know not everyone reading this voted for me, but I’m grateful that enough did so I can continue to serve all of you in the Wisconsin State Senate.

It’s rare for anyone to get everything they hoped for. Elections are a triumph for some and a huge letdown for others. Many of you may be experiencing both emotions as some of the candidates you voted for won while others lost. Once campaigns end, though, it’s time to accept results and work together.

Campaigns are full of opportunity for someone like me. I enjoy meeting new people so knocking on doors is right up my alley. While I only find someone home at about 1 in 5 doors, there are enough conversations each day to give me a sense of what folks expect from their elected legislators. I look forward to continuing those conversations with my stop and talk listening sessions when the weather warms up.

Too many think they can’t trust elected officials or that their vote doesn’t matter, but your vote is precious to our democratic-republic. It isn’t easy to learn all you want to know about each person on the ballot. Especially when candidates only want you to see the positive side of themselves. It’s harder to make your choice at the polls when fewer and fewer open forums are scheduled for candidates to debate. How do you know who or what to believe if the public can’t ask the candidates questions?

Voters lose when they don’t have the opportunity to interact with and learn about the candidates running for elected office. Even public radio debates have changed, with individual interviews replacing traditional call-in shows where voters could ask each candidate questions. That leaves too many voters depending on ads, mail and fringe internet groups to learn only what candidates want you to know.

I often encounter confusion over state and federal offices and responsibilities. Because there’s little or no coverage of the day-to-day workings of state government, most people just don’t know what happens in Madison. We’re overshadowed by the national drama. This allows legislators to operate with very little scrutiny and accountability. So, during a campaign, it’s the best time to educate voters about what elected officials do and how we serve.

That brings me around to the duties of the branches of government. The top of the ticket gets the attention but many forget that the governor or president isn’t able to do much more than what the legislature or congress send them. The legislature determines what’s funded and by how much. The governor might negotiate using the power of the veto pen.

That’s why holding the majority in the Legislature is so valuable. Whoever holds that majority determines what bills get public hearings and votes, what committees are created and who chairs them, and even when and how often the body meets in session. I’m always struck by voters who say they are disappointed when government isn’t working, but they plan to vote for the party already in charge. Since 1994, Republicans have held the majority in our State Assembly 26 out of 28 years while also holding the Senate majority most of those sessions.

Those in power have drawn district lines to ensure they don’t need to worry about re-election. It’s why most elected officials don’t feel the need to show up for public forums. In turn, most elected officials don’t feel the pressure to hold public hearings or pass legislation, even on issues strongly favored by their constituents.

That’s why I offered a resolution last session to allow citizens to gather signatures to place binding referenda questions on the ballot. Elected officials shouldn’t be able to refuse action on clearly-decided issues overwhelmingly favored by voters. Citizens need to have the power.

Moving forward, I’m hopeful that more folks will stay engaged when it comes to what elected officials can do to improve our communities and the issues that matter most to Wisconsin.

Your weekly message from Matt Rothschild at the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.

MADISON - Our great research director, Mike Buelow, put together a report this week on the record-shattering amount of outside money we saw here in Wisconsin in non-federal races. The amount was 50% higher than in 2018 and 5 times as much as in 2010, the year of the disastrous Citizens United decision. That’s not a coincidence!

Mike’s report has gotten a lot of media attention in Wisconsin, including from the Associated Press and Wisconsin Public Radio. You can read the report for yourself here:

Record $93M in Spending by Outside Groups in 2022

By the way, Latina Equal Pay Day was this week, and our terrific racial equity and economic justice advocate, Iuscely Flores, took this opportunity to lay out the various biases that people of color face in the workplace, as you’ll see here:

On Latina Equal Pay Day, Stop Bias in the Workplace

Saturday is International Human Rights Day, and I’ll be at Turner Hall in Milwaukee on a panel discussing how elections affect our human rights. If you’re in the area and are free at 10:00 a.m., it’d be great to see you there! Or register at shorturl.at/gEHIW to attend virtually, or watch on the Equal Rights Commission--MKE's Facebook page.

In any event, I hope you have a nice weekend.

Best,

Matt Rothschild
Executive Director
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Senator Smith discusses the importance of bipartisan effort and cooperation going into the 2023 Legislative Session.

MADISON - Reflecting on my two years of service in the in the Wisconsin State Assembly and four years of service in the State Senate, I notice a stark difference in the way the people’s business was handled then and now.

Don’t get me wrong, there were still intense political disagreements, but we also discussed the merits of bills during public hearings and while meeting in the halls of the Capitol. The power of a good idea pulled Republicans and Democrats together.

During the 8 years of the Walker administration, the Majority Party largely ignored the Minority Party. Harsh political fights over collective bargaining rights, redistricting, voting rights and many other issues left legislators very little appetite for bipartisanship.

Then Governor Evers was elected, and the Majority Party continued to show little interest in working across the aisle. I’ve said it. Governor Evers said it. Even Republican leaders said it - “We need to work together.” Still, the last four years has been marked by differing priorities, without the dialogue needed to resolve these conflicts.

Wisconsin has an estimated $6.6 billion dollar surplus this year. We have an amazing opportunity to reinvest this surplus in our public school system, with Governor Evers’ budget proposal adding $2 billion in investments in public schools. However, Republican leaders have different priorities, including expanding school choice statewide.

We all agree a middle class tax cut is a good idea, and Governor Evers has proposed tax cuts that would give relief to low-income families, seniors and veterans. Moving forward, I’m hoping that we can come together on a tax plan that will help all Wisconsinites prosper.

Imagine if Democrats and Republicans stood shoulder to shoulder advocating for a middle class tax cut at a press conference. Imagine if the Majority Party invited the Minority Party to the table to discuss how to accomplish our shared goal. The final product would be more representative of the needs of all Wisconsinites.

Unfortunately, there’s still some reluctance in really working together or perhaps there’s uncertainty as to where we start. I have a few ideas on what we can do first.

As Senators and Representatives we bring our unique experiences and differing opinions to the job. Every new session offers us an opportunity to start a productive dialogue to learn from each other. We can’t let our own bias and partisanship get in the way of doing what’s right.

When I was elected four years ago to represent District 31 in the State Senate, I made a commitment with my team to meet with Democratic and Republican legislators in the Assembly and the Senate. Four years on, I’m renewing that commitment. I’ll take this time to listen to their ideas and learn more about the communities they represent.

Having these conversations to acknowledge our differences and similarities is the first step for establishing mutual respect. These relationships can build trust so we can, again, make the right decisions for the future of our state.

A team’s success begins and ends with trust in each other. As a lifelong sports fan and former high school sports participant (can’t honestly say I was a star athlete, but I tried), I know how much further we get when we work as a team.

I’ve observed Republicans finding Democrats who might add their name next to theirs as co-authors of their bills. That’s a good step, but adding names is not enough; it’s about adding good ideas too. As legislators, we need to prioritize cooperative input and let the power of a good idea take root in our Legislature.

We have an opportunity to turn the page and heal the political divisions. Progress will happen once we put away the political scorecards and move forward.