Capitol Contenders
Candidates Square Off On Co-ops’ Questions
November
7 brings an important statewide election. Wisconsin Energy Cooperative
News (WECN) surveyed the major party candidates for governor
and attorney general on issues that have been covered in past
magazine issues. We posed the same sets of questions to the
candidates for each office and asked each candidate to limit
his or her responses to an equal, overall word limit. We have
not edited the candidate responses and candidates were not allowed
to see their opponents’ responses prior to publication.
Others are running for governor and attorney
general, but we limited our survey to the Democratic and Republican
candidates because they have consistently scored above 10-percent
support in public opinion polls. We also had space limitations.
The only other candidates consistently polling between 1 percent
and 10 percent are the Green Party candidates for governor and
lieutenant governor: former Dane County Supervisor Nelson Eisman
and former Milwaukee Public Schools Board Member Leon Todd.
Information about their campaigns can be found at www.wisconsingreenparty.org
Candidates for Wisconsin
Governor
Democratic Candidates for Governor
and Lieutenant Governor:
Jim Doyle/Barbara Lawton
Jim Doyle has served as Wisconsin’s
governor since January 2003. He served previously as state attorney
general from 1991–2003 and as Dane County district attorney
from 1977–83. Governor Doyle holds a 1967 B.A. from UW–Madison
and a 1972 J.D. from Harvard Law. He and his wife, Jessica,
have two children. He is teamed on the ballot with incumbent
Lieutenant Governor Barbara Lawton.
Republican Candidates for Governor
and Lieutenant Governor:
Mark Green/Jean Hundertmark
Mark Green has represented Wisconsin’s
Eighth Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives
since 1999. He served previously in the State Assembly from
1993–1999 and was a member of the Republican leadership
there. Green holds a B.A. from UW–Eau Claire and a 1987
J.D. from the University of Wisconsin–Madison Law School.
He and his wife, Sue, have three children. Jean Hundertmark,
the lieutenant governor candidate, is teamed with Green.
WECN Questions to the Candidates:
1. Will you continue efforts to reach the
10-percent renewable portfolio standard established last year
or shift the target to a higher number?
Doyle: Earlier this year, we worked in a bipartisan
way to establish a 10-percent renewable portfolio standard (RPS).
This would not have been possible without the strong support
of Wisconsin’s energy cooperatives. This goal sets 2015
for a 10-percent RPS for electric energy only.
This summer, I established Wisconsin’s
Declaration of Energy Independence, a public/private partnership
to make Wisconsin America’s leader in the drive toward
energy independence—in energy provided over the electric
grid and for our transportation fuel.
The declaration seeks to:
• Generate 25 percent of Wisconsin’s
power and 25 percent of Wisconsin’s transportation fuels
from renewable sources by the year 2025;
• Capture 10 percent of the emerging bioindustry market
by 2030, using our biomass resources to produce fuel, power,
and products; and
• Become a national leader in groundbreaking research
that will make alternative energies more affordable and available—and
to turn those discoveries into new, high-paying jobs in Wisconsin.
I know that all energy stakeholders are working
towards the 2015, 10-percent RPS, and hopefully, we will exceed
that standard and be well on our way to 25 percent by that time.
Clearly, the entire cooperative community will be a big part
of both the electric and transportation portions of our goal.
Green: Our energy portfolio needs to be reliable,
affordable, and diverse. A diversified energy portfolio helps
prevent price spikes in one area from having a detrimental impact
on consumers. One of our top priorities must be to meet more
of our energy demand domestically, instead of relying on foreign
sources. I support the 10-percent renewable portfolio requirement,
and I hope that as technology grows we can expand that number
even further.
2. If the Legislative Council Special Committee
proposes to lift Wisconsin’s moratorium on nuclear plant
construction, and the Legislature approves a bill to accomplish
that, would you sign it or veto it?
Green: I believe the key to meeting our future
energy needs is through a diverse mix of energy sources—including
renewable fuels and nuclear power. As governor, I would sign
legislation to lift Wisconsin’s moratorium on nuclear
plant construction.
Doyle: There hasn’t been a nuclear plant
built anywhere in the country in the past three decades, and
Wisconsin certainly isn’t going to be the first state
to break that trend. As long as I’m governor, the focus
is going to be on clean, renewable energy that can power our
state and drive our economy.
3. What provisions would need to be included
in a “sound science” standard for civil liability
cases in order for you, as governor, to sign it into law?
Doyle: I trust juries in Wisconsin to weigh
the credibility and reliability of evidence when making their
decisions, and Wisconsin judges are already empowered to reject
evidence. I am not aware of any evidence that Wisconsin’s
existing rules are producing unfair results. Further, the bills
that have been forwarded to me regarding lay and expert witnesses
would make it harder for state prosecutors to do their jobs.
Prosecutors would face new obstacles in introducing key expert
testimony that relies on disciplines such as psychiatry, DNA
testing, fingerprint analysis, or forensics—testimony
which can be key in committing sexual predators, for example.
Green: I recently unveiled a comprehensive economic development
and job creation plan that would, among other things, provide
common sense lawsuit reform for Wisconsin’s businesses.
One of the proposals in my plan would strengthen existing standards
for “expert” testimony in civil liability cases—a
proposal similar to legislation vetoed by Governor Doyle that
I would have signed into law. Liability cases need to be decided
on the sound science only truly qualified, expert witnesses
can provide, and as governor I’ll make sure that is the
case.
4. What would be your administration’s
priorities to grow rural Wisconsin’s economy?
Doyle: I strongly support increasing the production
of renewable energy. Ethanol and biodiesel are cleaner burning
fuels, are better for the environment, and generate economic
development in our rural communities. Over the last four years,
we have laid out a broad vision for securing our future energy
independence through achieving 25 percent of our energy from
home-grown resources. Accomplishing this goal will result in
the production of over 900 million gallons of Wisconsin-grown
and -produced fuels and raise the prices Wisconsin producers
receive for soybeans and corn.
In addition, Wisconsin’s agriculture
and dairy industries are the backbone of Wisconsin’s economy.
I have worked to promote initiatives, such as the livestock
siting bill, the dairy modernization tax credit, the working
lands initiative, regulatory certainty efforts, and Grow Wisconsin
initiatives to help grow and sustain Wisconsin’s vibrant
agricultural and dairy economy.
Finally, education is the path to economic
prosperity and one of my top priorities. I have fought for resources
to help expand educational opportunities for our rural schools,
sought additionally flexibility for low-spending and declining-enrollment
districts, and secured additional funding for transportation
costs. I will continue to put education and economic development
first as long as I am governor.
Green: As the nation begins to look toward
more renewable energy sources to fuel our growing economy, Wisconsin
could position itself as a leader in the production of those
fuels—particularly ethanol. Increased ethanol production
in Wisconsin could be an economic boon to our state. Minnesota,
which has required 10 percent ethanol in motor fuel since 1997,
has had such a positive experience that they are increasing
their blend requirement to 20 percent. Wisconsin can learn from
their positive results. I have no doubt we can match Minnesota’s
5,300 ethanol-generated jobs and the $1.36 billion boost their
economy receives from ethanol. As governor, I’ll help
ensure Wisconsin is well-positioned to stay ahead of the pack
in the production of renewable fuels.
.Candidates for Wisconsin
Attorney General
Democratic Candidate: Kathleen Falk
Kathleen Falk is the Dane County executive
and was elected in 2000 and 2004. She served previously as co-director
and counsel to Wisconsin's Environmental Decade and as the state's
public intervenor in the attorney general's office. She earned
a B.A. from Stanford University and a J.D. from the University
of Wisconsin–Madison Law School. She is married and has
one son.
Republican Candidate: J.B. Van Hollen
J.B. Van Hollen is an attorney in private
practice and served as U.S. attorney for the Western District
of Wisconsin from 2000–2002. He has been elected district
attorney in both Ashland and Bayfield Counties. Van Hollen earned
a B.A. from St. Olaf College in 1988 and a J.D. from the University
of Wisconsin–Madison Law School in 1990. He is married
and has two children.
1. Would you support transferring consumer
protection functions to the Department of Justice or retaining
them in the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection?
Van Hollen: Wisconsin is one the leaders in
the nation in finding satisfaction for consumers. As attorney
general, my job will be to enforce the laws the Legislature
passes and are approved by the governor. The governor and Legislature
made the determination to place the agency where it currently
resides. My opponent wants to move the department to the DOJ.
Kathleen Falk: In prior years, many consumer
protection responsibilities were held by the Department of Justice
(DOJ). As attorney general, I will advocate for the return of
these responsibilities to DOJ, including the investigation and
enforcement of identity theft.
I was an assistant attorney general for 14
years and I understand that combining the investigation and
prosecution of consumer violations in DOJ is important for several
reasons. First, having investigators and lawyers working collaboratively
together within the same department, instead of two different
state agencies, maximizes the effectiveness of their time and
efforts. Second, the close collaboration of investigators and
prosecutors increases the likelihood of spotting statewide and
national patterns of consumer violations, including identity
theft.
2. The current Department of Justice has associated
itself with the use of “public nuisance” lawsuits
against entities engaged in lawful activities that some would
like to see altered or terminated. Would you, as attorney general,
continue to sue such enterprises as public nuisances?
Falk: I do, and always have, supported the
“right to farm,” and I have spent my life fighting
urban sprawl to protect farmland, including many innovative
steps as county executive for 10 years. For example, I created
a grant program for farmers to create value added initiatives
on the farm and worked on bio-diesel and soy initiatives. Most
recently I stood with Secretary Rod Nilsestuen of DATCP and
the Farmer’s Union as they announced their carbon credit
program with the first farmer to sign up from Dane County. One
of the many duties given to the attorney general by the Legislature
is to take action if a nuisance exists.
Van Hollen: One of the reasons I am running
for attorney general is to focus the DOJ’s limited resources
on crime-related matters and not on persecuting law abiding
people and businesses. The nuisance suits, such as the one filed
against a northern cranberry grower, waste precious resources
and taxpayer dollars that could be used to solve the backlog
at the state crime lab and other crime-related problems. I support
the “right to farm” law. In contrast, my opponent
believes the suit against the cranberry grower, who had not
broken the law, is appropriate.
3. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not classified
as a hazardous pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA),
and the Environmental Protection Agency says it lacks authority
under the act to regulate CO2 emissions. The current Department
of Justice has engaged in litigation seeking to compel EPA regulation
of CO2. Would you, as attorney general, continue to pursue such
litigation?
Van Hollen: I have stated publicly that one
of the first things I will do once elected attorney general
is to abolish the position of solicitor general, a position
designed to troll for politically motivated lawsuits. Again,
my vision of the office is to ensure the safety and security
of Wisconsin citizens—not to use the office for a political
agenda. My agenda includes locking up drug dealers, cracking
down on gang and gun violence, stopping the spread of methamphetamine,
and putting child predators behind bars. I will enforce state
law to the fullest but I believe lawsuits, like the suit filed
against the EPA, are politically motivated. When politics takes
precedent and gets in the way of science-based public policy,
citizens of Wisconsin end up paying more.
Kathleen Falk: If elected to serve as your
next attorney general, I will review all cases pending before
the Department of Justice upon taking office.
4. Whether Wisconsin ought to have an official
serving as public intervenor has been a contentious question
for years. Some argue that the office is needed as a watchdog
over a DNR or Public Service Commission that might be insufficiently
vigilant enforcing their regulations. Others say it amounts
to spending taxpayer dollars for the state to sue itself. On
which side of that question would you come down?
Kathleen Falk: I served as public intervenor
for 12 years. As attorney general I will work with the legislature
and Governor Doyle to restore the public intervenor’s
office.
Van Hollen: My opponent wants to reestablish
the office of public intervenor. I do not believe the state
needs to hire more attorneys to sue other state agencies, which
ensures the taxpayers pay both legal bills. The governor and
the Legislature decided to dismantle these positions because
of these reasons. As attorney general, I will enforce the laws
on the books but will not create a new public intervenor position(s)
at the DOJ. Bill Oemichen and Dave Hoopman
