That's everyone then

It's official. No one can give money to the candidates in the race for governor or any other politician for that matter. Every donation is suspect and a potential scandal.

A story in the Wisconsin State Journal today is the one that makes it official. The story is highlighting a ridiculous accusation by the Republicans about a business that gave money to Governor Doyle but didn't get any business from the state. If you have been following the news, adding this story to the mix means business that don't get contracts from the state cannot give money and businesses that do get contracts from the state cannot give money before OR after getting a contract.

That's everyone I guess. Anyone that works for a business is not allowed to give money to politicians because you just never know if your employer might get a contract from the state or might not get a contract from the state.

At what point do you think the businesses in Wisconsin will get really angry that the press is making them look as bad to the public as the politicians they support?

A recent story in the Capital Times illustrates just how poisonous the press has made campaign contributions to politicians these days. The article is about doctors donating to Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz's campaign and the reporter was trying to get the doctors to say they were donating to him solely because of the smoking ban that Cieslewicz's promoted for the city.

None of the doctors wanted to go on record saying this, but the reporter, desperately trying to make this a story, was quick to point out that many of the health professionals have never given money to the mayor's campaign before.

Why is this a bad thing or even an issue?

Why can't citizens donate money to a politician after they see the politician doing something they like without an attempt by the press to make it sort of slimy? Isn't that what we want to happen? Citizens to get involved in the process, see an issue that they believe in come to fruition and then get involved helping that politician get re-elected?

Campaigns have gotten into this game too because it is the easiest way for a campaign to get press. Campaigns can put out ten press releases outlining plans and policy directions and maybe get a story or two buried on page three. But put out one press release connecting the dots on campaign contributions and votes about your opponent and you'll most likely get a front page story out of it with a screaming headline.

Those headlines do two things are damaging to our elections - they force campaigns to try to supply the next headline just like it about their opponent and drive down voter turnout. The press truly does have the power the change both of those.

This is not an argument for the press to ingnore campaign donations (that would place me in a glass house). Sometimes there is a story there. However, I do think I focus far, far more often on voting records than I do campaign donations because I think politicians shouldn't get away with saying they support something in campaign literature and then vote the opposite way.

The press could really do the public a service by focusing on votes taken by both parties more often and save the stories about campaign donations for the real scandals.