MADISON, Wis. – Government watchdog groups are calling into question the effectiveness of the newly formed Wisconsin Ethics Commission.

The new entity was created a year ago to replace the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board.

In its first year of existence, the Ethics Commission investigated a single alleged violation of state campaign finance and lobbying laws.

In the year prior, the Government Accountability Board handled 39 investigations.

Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause in Wisconsin, says the new commission isn't doing a good job, in part because many of the state's once-strong ethics laws were repealed.

"Those were all repealed by the end of 2015,” he explains. “We now have one of the least regulated, most wide open 'Wild West' campaign finance and ethics systems in the country, rating somewhere below Alabama and Mississippi, and maybe just east of Texas."

The Republican legislative leadership, which spearheaded the repeal of most of the state's strong political ethics laws, says the former Government Accountability Board was used as an instrument for partisan witch hunts.

Heck and others strongly disagree, pointing out that the new Ethics Commission is the very embodiment of partisan politics.

"The administrator of the Ethics Commission is answerable to the legislative leadership,” he points out. “He's not answerable to the law.

“The nonpartisan judges who made up the Government Accountability Board did not have to answer to the legislative leadership, and in fact had a separate stream of funding to conduct investigations."

The now-defunct Government Accountability Board was composed of nine retired judges, who adhered to the law, not to the direction of legislative leadership.

Heck says the new Ethics Commission was designed to be a completely partisan instrument, and, unlike the former board, it cannot initiate investigations.

"In November of 2016, one of the judges that had been appointed to the new Ethics Commission quit in disgust,” Heck relates. “He said it was a partisan entity that did not adhere to the law, and that only adhered and listened to the partisan masters that made the appointments to the Commission."

Heck says, sarcastically, the Ethics Commission is operating “exactly as it was designed.”





get more stories like this via email

California good governance experts are warning the expansion of presidential power under a second Trump administration could cast aside expertise and the public good to further purely political aims.

Over the past week, President-elect Donald Trump has nominated multiple candidates known more for their personal support for him than for relevant expertise.

Bill Resh, associate professor of public policy at the University of Southern California, said Trump appears to be following the blueprint set by Project 2025.

"Project 2025 puts into place principles such as loyalty, first and foremost, to the President as a criterion for placement into these agencies, and often with the intention of undermining those missions."

Supporters of President-elect Trump say voters have given him a mandate to govern as he sees fit. So far, he has nominated people strongly aligned with the oil industry to run the U.S. Interior Department and be Energy Secretary. He has nominated a climate change skeptic to run the Environmental Protection Agency, a television host with no executive experience as Defense Secretary, an election denier for Attorney General and a vaccine skeptic to run the Department of Health and Human Services.

Resh noted Trump has already suggested using recess appointments to avoid what could be bruising confirmation hearings for some of his nominees.

"His stars are aligned to consolidate executive power and bring what used to be either quasi- or fully independent agencies, that were not subject to political whims, to bring those agencies to heel toward his policy preferences," Resh contended.

This year, the U.S. Supreme Court found presidents cannot be prosecuted for most actions in office. And come January, both houses of Congress will be controlled by allies of President-elect Trump.

New York City residents approved three of Mayor Eric Adams' four charter reforms in last week's election. But how many realized what they were voting for?

Critics of the reform proposals say the language on the ballots may seem harmless, but each proposition expands the power of the mayor or a city agency. For instance, Proposition 3 requires more public notice on public safety legislation - but it also lets agencies hold hearings, bypassing the City Council.

Based on voters' feedback, Perla Silva, senior civic engagement coordinator for Make the Road New York, said the wording of each initiative made them hard to interpret.

"[Proposition] 3 to 6 was very confusing," she said. "They just did not really understand what that meant. The wording around it, the language was just not clear to them. It just sounded like it was supporting and it was going to be helping City Council."

She said voters were equally confused by Proposition 2, which many assumed would lead to cleaner parks and offer more parks for kids. Instead, it increases the policing of homeless people and street vendors.

A Data for Progress survey before the election also showed 65-percent of likely voters hadn't heard about these charter reforms.

Given the scandals surrounding the Adams administration, not all New Yorkers are convinced the mayor should have more power. The Data for Progress survey found 47% of voters worry Adams would put his own needs before theirs.

Adams is staying in the 2025 mayor's race, but faces many challengers for the Democratic nomination. Silva said she isn't surprised.

"Eric Adams increasing his power and his policing technique to 'securing' New York City," she said, "but we know that it's really harming the working class."

She said the propositions could further empower the New York City Police Department.

The New York Civil Liberties Union found that police stops have risen since Adams became mayor - although almost 70% of people stopped have been innocent, and research has shown that violent crimes fell when police stops did.

Some New York House lawmakers supported a bill harmful to nonprofits. H.R. 9495 faced staunch opposition since it would have given the Treasury Secretary unilateral power to revoke tax exemptions for nonprofits considered "terrorist supporting organizations." The bill stems from a disinformation campaign saying Democrats support terrorists and would have jeopardized nonprofits providing aid to Palestinians in Gaza.

Beth Miller, political director with Jewish Voice for Peace Action, said this foreshadows Donald Trump's second term.

"It's very clear that the far-right MAGA Republicans are planning to take every step they can to dismantle our fundamental freedoms including our right to free speech, our right to protest, and attacking the nonprofit civil-society sector and social justice movements and progressive movements," she said.

This isn't the first time a bill like this was voted on in the House. H.R. 6408 passed the chamber earlier this year with staunch bipartisan support. But, it failed in the Senate. With H.R. 9495, 52 Democrats joined all Republicans in the chamber to vote in favor of it. Miller said with a GOP trifecta in Washington next year, lawmakers must watch out for double-edged legislation that could have harmless language and destructive consequences.

One reason so many Democrats support the bill is the other provision of it which gives tax breaks to Americans wrongfully imprisoned abroad or held hostage by terror groups. Miller noted that it's a perfectly sensible thing to pass on its own.

"However, if Republicans actually wanted to push that through, they could have pushed that through separately as a standalone bill and gotten total bipartisan support for it," she continued. "However, they tried to attach it to this other bill because what they really wanted to get through was the piece of this legislation that was all about giving the Trump executive branch more authority."

She added bills like this will be common and noted that Democrats are often too willing to sell out the Palestinian rights movement for the sake of bipartisanship.