wi_home

When Wisconsin voters cast their ballots on election day, theyÂ'll also be voting on a symbolic referenda question. Just how important is money in our electoral process? Two of the U.S. Senate candidates in Wisconsin are running two very different campaigns that will help them decide.

Democrat incumbent Sen. Russell Feingold is one half of the failed, coming to a 106th Congress near you, McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Despite the fact that the reforms did not become law, he is voluntarily campaigning under the limits as he battles for re-election. He is limiting his PAC contributions to 10% of funds raised, keeping out-of-state donations to less tan 25%, and capping campaign spending at $1 per state resident B or $3.8 Million each. [This is less than half what Sen. Paul Wellstone spent in the Â'96 race in neighboring Minnesota.] But the most dangerous of the self-imposed rules is a request that special interest groups with soft money stay away; this includes the DSCC.

His challenger, Rep. Mark Neumann has also agreed to abide by only some of these rules; he is accepting money from the Republican Party. For him, the gamble is not as great he wants voters, unschooled in election politics, to believe. Neumann is portraying this as a sacrifice to his campaign. He says this is an opportunity to emphasize his conservative view, that Americans will do the right thing even without Washington mandates and regulations. But heÂ's bypassing one important regulation: no soft money. Some estimate the NRSC has injected about $1 Million into this campaign for issue ads.

The truth is, NRSC Chairman Mitch McConnell is opposed to Campaign Finance Reform and is determined to eliminate debate on it in the future. According to the New York Times, a Republican lobbyist is confident, AMitch will spend what it takes in Wisconsin.@ And to a GOP Senator, McConnell said, ADonÂ't worry about campaign finance reform. FeingoldÂ's going to be dead meat by Christmas.@

Feingold sees A[McConnellÂ's] personal vendetta@ as a necessary challenge to the viability of campaign finance reform. Indeed less is more this year in Wisconsin. Neumann wants less government and Feingold want fewer distractions in the campaign process. [There has only been 1 other national race to limit their campaign spending. In 1996, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and his challenger Gov. William Weld agreed to a spending cap. But, as the rancor in the final weeks of the campaign escalated, the plan dissolved.]

A Libertarian, Tom Ender, is also on the ballot for U.S. Senate. He is not expected to be much of a factor in this race, as he has not participated in campaign debates or been included in polling.

Officially, Feingold is refusing all national party or special interest group contributions. Some of those groups, like the AFL-CIO, Sierra Club, and League of Conservation Voters, however are in Wisconsin working on FeingoldÂ's behalf. Plus, the DSCC is trying to channel $400,000 in hard money to the state Party. So when Feingold complains he is being outspent by his challenger, Neumann tells his opponent to stop complaining.

Feingold, who describes himself as the poorest Senator with a net worth of less than $40,000, is traversing the state in a van to conduct town meetings in all 72 counties and making small buys for TV advertising. He says heÂ's left $800,000 for the final push.

Incumbent	Tommy Thompson(R)
Opponent	Ed Garvey(D)
Race Outlook	Strong Republican

Thompson has been recognized nationally for his efforts on welfare reform and school choice and continues to be popular in Wisconsin. Because he has been considered almost unbeatable, the campaign has gotten little attention. This was most apparent when Thompson was tripped up during a debate on a question about whether he would pledge to serve out his four year term. He refused to take the pledge -- usually considered a political no-no. But few people saw the debate because it aired at the same time as a University of Wisconsin Badgers game. In a competitive race, Thompson's noncommittal response could have dogged him until election day, but instead it was a one-day headline.

Garvey, a labor lawyer, has gained some traction with an
ad highlighting a study that put Wisconsin taxes the second highest in the country, behind only New York. Thompson has proposed a tax cut, but Garvey blasts it as a tax cut for the rich has offered his own 'tax fairness' plan. While Garvey may hold Thompson below the 67% of the vote he received in 1994, it
is highly unlikely he would pose a threat. With Thompson's 10-1 fundraising advantage (Garvey won't take contributions of more than $100), he can afford to fumble in the debates. Thompson's lead looks insurmountable.