J B Van Hollen
As predicted, the winner of the Senate and Governor were from one party and that party took the Attorney General seat along with it. Republican J B Van Hollen won out against his opponent Scott Hassett in the polls, beating him 57.8% to 42.2%.
To say I am disappointed with this election would be an outrageous understatement. Only around 38% of Wisconsinites voted on November 2nd. 38%. To think that 38% of Wisconsin can accurately define what the whole states wants is absurd, but there you have it. Those who voted Republican come out in larger numbers, partly, I fear, because Democrats didn't do much to get the vote out until the last minute.
So, Wisconsin has gone into the red, as many Democratic seats were taken over by Republicans, and as Van Hollen held his Attorney General seat. I don't think it bodes well for the kind of Wisconsin I would like to see, but we will just have to wait and see what the party does for out state.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Cansequences of the Game
Ultimately, if J B Van Hollen is re-elected, he is going to stand for the same things he stood for before. He will support the the staple "Republican" causes. He will stand up for the Arizona Immigration law, fight Health care, and fight against gay rights. Yes, he has done, and will continue to do, good. Under his leadership, the crime labs in Wisconsin eliminated a backlog of DNA evidence that needed to be processed and increased the efforts to stop sex crimes against children. A Van Hollen win would mean the continued efforts in this area, but would also keep a man in office with very right winged ideology.
A Hassett win could change that. It could bring the Attorney General position back to a Democratic standing. It would keep a foothold in Wisconsin for the democratic party, because as much as I do not want to admit it, a Republican takeover is possible. The people I have seen in Wisconsin fight against the injustice in Arizona, want more affordable health care, and a lot of them do support gay rights. Keeping Van Hollen in his position would mean one more voice to speak out against what I know a lot of people believe in.
The reality of the situation is that not many people are paying attention to the Attorney General race, and who can blame them. The Senate and Governor races are taking the front seat, so it is my prediction that whichever party claims the Senate and Governor positions, because I believe that one party will take both of those seats, will take the Attorney General Position as well.
A Hassett win could change that. It could bring the Attorney General position back to a Democratic standing. It would keep a foothold in Wisconsin for the democratic party, because as much as I do not want to admit it, a Republican takeover is possible. The people I have seen in Wisconsin fight against the injustice in Arizona, want more affordable health care, and a lot of them do support gay rights. Keeping Van Hollen in his position would mean one more voice to speak out against what I know a lot of people believe in.
The reality of the situation is that not many people are paying attention to the Attorney General race, and who can blame them. The Senate and Governor races are taking the front seat, so it is my prediction that whichever party claims the Senate and Governor positions, because I believe that one party will take both of those seats, will take the Attorney General Position as well.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Media
Throughout the course of the race, the media coverage for the Attorney General candidates has been scarce to say the least. There has not been much, if any coverage on the news, and only a few news articles about the candidates and their "fight" for the position.
One topic has received the majority of the coverage, and that is the Kratz sexting scandal. Hassett has claimed that Van Hollen knew about the situation beforehand, and that Van Hollen did nothing to stop it. Van Hollen, however did do something. He opened an investigation after the original complaint was filed, but that is pretty much it. The investigation was only open for a few days, and Kratz himself was never even questioned. The situation does seem fairly sketchy from the outside, but the media has been on both sides of the issue. Some people ignore Hassett's claims as outlandish, while others cry out in protest at Van Hollen's lack of action. In reality, the coverage of the story isn't nearly enough to sway many voter's opinions for or against either opponent. None of the coverage seems to be, because like I said, there really isn't that much out there.
Both candidates have produced commercials. Hassett's commercial focuses entirely on the Kratz scandal, while Van Hollen's focuses on what a good job he has done while in office while claiming that his opponent has never even prosecuted a single case. Hassett's commercial may not sway the voting, simply because that seems to be the only thing Hassett is using against Van Hollen. Van Hollen's commercial might affect people's views whether they look into Hassett's background for themselves or not. Hassett was a trail lawyer before he headed up the DNR, so while he may not have prosecuted any cases, he has defended them. His defense experience might not match up against Van Hollen's past as a prosecutor for the state. As a whole, Hassett's plights against Van Hollen and the Kratz scandal seem to be falling on deaf ears, whereas Van Hollen's complaints are making his case even stronger. Pair that with the expected rise for the Republicans, and it seems like Hassett doesn't stand a chance.
The commercials that the two put out, did not receive much air time. In fact, I never saw either of the ads on TV. The ads were promoted in their newsletters, and were posted on their respective websites.
So why was there little commercial time for the candidates, and why was there little news coverage of the race? There is one main reasons.
1st: The bigger races are stealing all the lime light. You can't turn on the TV without seeing a senate candidate commercial, or a governor commercial, and you can't watch the news without news of the two big races coming out on top. The truth is, more people care about the senate seat and the election of a new governor. Simple as that. Those races are taking all the commercial and news time, leaving little to none for the Attorney General race, or many other races for that matter.
One topic has received the majority of the coverage, and that is the Kratz sexting scandal. Hassett has claimed that Van Hollen knew about the situation beforehand, and that Van Hollen did nothing to stop it. Van Hollen, however did do something. He opened an investigation after the original complaint was filed, but that is pretty much it. The investigation was only open for a few days, and Kratz himself was never even questioned. The situation does seem fairly sketchy from the outside, but the media has been on both sides of the issue. Some people ignore Hassett's claims as outlandish, while others cry out in protest at Van Hollen's lack of action. In reality, the coverage of the story isn't nearly enough to sway many voter's opinions for or against either opponent. None of the coverage seems to be, because like I said, there really isn't that much out there.
Both candidates have produced commercials. Hassett's commercial focuses entirely on the Kratz scandal, while Van Hollen's focuses on what a good job he has done while in office while claiming that his opponent has never even prosecuted a single case. Hassett's commercial may not sway the voting, simply because that seems to be the only thing Hassett is using against Van Hollen. Van Hollen's commercial might affect people's views whether they look into Hassett's background for themselves or not. Hassett was a trail lawyer before he headed up the DNR, so while he may not have prosecuted any cases, he has defended them. His defense experience might not match up against Van Hollen's past as a prosecutor for the state. As a whole, Hassett's plights against Van Hollen and the Kratz scandal seem to be falling on deaf ears, whereas Van Hollen's complaints are making his case even stronger. Pair that with the expected rise for the Republicans, and it seems like Hassett doesn't stand a chance.
The commercials that the two put out, did not receive much air time. In fact, I never saw either of the ads on TV. The ads were promoted in their newsletters, and were posted on their respective websites.
So why was there little commercial time for the candidates, and why was there little news coverage of the race? There is one main reasons.
1st: The bigger races are stealing all the lime light. You can't turn on the TV without seeing a senate candidate commercial, or a governor commercial, and you can't watch the news without news of the two big races coming out on top. The truth is, more people care about the senate seat and the election of a new governor. Simple as that. Those races are taking all the commercial and news time, leaving little to none for the Attorney General race, or many other races for that matter.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Polls
Well, along with the general theme of this race, there are really no polls to speak of for the Attorney General race. None. Zero, zip, nada. The only thing I could find was a projection that it would be likely Republican by governing.com. They say that while Hassett has been criticizing Van Hollen for his inaction in the Kratz sexting scandal. The problem is, no one can really figure out what Van Hollen's involvement was, and the conversation around the whole this very murky. Governing.com says that his criticism is falling on mostly deaf ears, and that it doesn't seem to be lowering public opinion of Van Hollen, making them thing that the republican will hold on to his seat. If there was more media on the race, we could actually see if this was true, but there is so much media surrounding the Senate and Governors races, no one seems to have time for the Attorney General. My prediction, most people will vote straight Democratic or straight Republican tickets. I think whatever party wins the Senate, is most likely going to win Attorney General.
To check out what governing.com has to say yourself, check out this link. (You need to scroll down to see the Wisconsin Attorney General race)
Governing.com
To check out what governing.com has to say yourself, check out this link. (You need to scroll down to see the Wisconsin Attorney General race)
Governing.com
Party Support?
It's hard to tell exactly how much the parties are supporting the candidates in this race, mainly because there is not a huge amount of media surrounding this race. When you look at money, Hassett was supported with a $2,500 donation from the Wisconsin Democratic Party, and Van Hollen was not supported with donations from his party at all.
This could be for a number a reasons. The Democratic Party is trying to hold on to and gain as many seats as possible. They might see that Hassett has a chance of winning or they might see that he has no where near as much money as Van Hollen. Either way they decided to back him with money. The Republican party could also have a number a reasons for not giving money to Van Hollen. They could be hoping that if they pour enough money into the big races, Van Hollen will have a easy ride in on those who vote a straight Republican ticket, or they didn't give him money because he already had gained a lot of donation from corporations and he did not need their help.
Personally, I think the Dems support Hassett because he needed the money, and they want to win that seat back. I think the Republicans did not give money to Van Hollen because they did not want to spend money where they didn't think they needed to and decided to focus on the bigger races instead.
This could be for a number a reasons. The Democratic Party is trying to hold on to and gain as many seats as possible. They might see that Hassett has a chance of winning or they might see that he has no where near as much money as Van Hollen. Either way they decided to back him with money. The Republican party could also have a number a reasons for not giving money to Van Hollen. They could be hoping that if they pour enough money into the big races, Van Hollen will have a easy ride in on those who vote a straight Republican ticket, or they didn't give him money because he already had gained a lot of donation from corporations and he did not need their help.
Personally, I think the Dems support Hassett because he needed the money, and they want to win that seat back. I think the Republicans did not give money to Van Hollen because they did not want to spend money where they didn't think they needed to and decided to focus on the bigger races instead.
Money, Money, Money
Let's talk cash.
Scott Hassett's total cash raised amounts to around $250,000 when you don't take into account the Wisconsin Election Campaign fund grant for $70,000. The majority of Hassett's funds came from private donations, around $135,000. However, when you just look at the Political Action Committee contributions, his big contributors were the labor union. I mean big. over $20,000 from the Wisconsin Education Association council, $20,000 from Madison Teachers, and another $20,000 from the United Transportation Union. If giving money means you get what you want, then Hassett is definitely going to be good for Wisconsin workers.
The second biggest contributors were lobbyists. Two lobbying firms donated over $1,000 to Hassett. Quarles & Brady gave him $2,275 and Foley & Lardner gave him $1,450. As with any lawyer firm, it was nearly impossible to find a list of clients for the two firms. I did find that Quarles & Brady are tied to a lobbying firm in Arizona that has funded a ballot measure that would temporarily raise sales taxes. On their website they emphasize that they support non-profit organization, and their lawyers donate their time to these organization. They do not however, expressly say what they stand for. Foley & Larner is even stranger. They give most of their money to Florida but that's not the strangest. They gave $71,000 to Republicans and $52,000 to Democrats from the state. With a little digging, it seems that the firm strongly represents health care reform, yet they majorly contribute to Republicans, who are notoriously against health care reform. Confused? I don't think I will ever understand what lobbyists really are trying to do, but I think that is the point.
Van Hollen, however, has a lot more money. A lot. Where Hassett had $135,000 in personal donations, Van Hollen raised $730,000. That's over 5 times as much as Hassett. The major political action committees that contributed to Van Hollen include: $20,000 from Realtors PAC, $15,000 from Concerned Realtors Committee, $13,250 from the WI Bankers Association, and $10,000 from Wal-Mart. What does that say about Van Hollen's interests? It would seem that if Van Hollen is following the money, his interests lie with Big Corporations and the Finance industry.
Van Hollen received over $30,000 from Lawyers & Lobbyists, though all the contributions were made from individual lawyers, making it harder to discern what firms are majorly representing him, and what the interests of those firms are. Though, from looking at his PAC contributions, I would guess the interests of the firms would largely revolve around realty, banks, and big business.
So what do I think about this? Hassett is supported by labor unions, while Van Hollen is supported by the big money industries of realty, finance, and big businesses. If you want someone who supports the "normal" workers of Wisconsin, the choice would be Hassett. If you want someone who supports the rich, big, industries, the choice would be Van Hollen. I would choose workers over big corporations. That's just me though. You can take the money as you see it.
Follow the Money Profiles:
Hassett on Wisconsin Democratic Campaign: Follow the Money
Hassett on Follow the Money.org
Van Hollen on Wisconin Democratic Campaign: Follow the Money
Van Hollen on Follow the Money.org
This is a great page on the Wisconsin Democratic Campaign: Follow the Money website that explains the money terminology:
Wisconsin Campaign Finance Glossary
Scott Hassett's total cash raised amounts to around $250,000 when you don't take into account the Wisconsin Election Campaign fund grant for $70,000. The majority of Hassett's funds came from private donations, around $135,000. However, when you just look at the Political Action Committee contributions, his big contributors were the labor union. I mean big. over $20,000 from the Wisconsin Education Association council, $20,000 from Madison Teachers, and another $20,000 from the United Transportation Union. If giving money means you get what you want, then Hassett is definitely going to be good for Wisconsin workers.
The second biggest contributors were lobbyists. Two lobbying firms donated over $1,000 to Hassett. Quarles & Brady gave him $2,275 and Foley & Lardner gave him $1,450. As with any lawyer firm, it was nearly impossible to find a list of clients for the two firms. I did find that Quarles & Brady are tied to a lobbying firm in Arizona that has funded a ballot measure that would temporarily raise sales taxes. On their website they emphasize that they support non-profit organization, and their lawyers donate their time to these organization. They do not however, expressly say what they stand for. Foley & Larner is even stranger. They give most of their money to Florida but that's not the strangest. They gave $71,000 to Republicans and $52,000 to Democrats from the state. With a little digging, it seems that the firm strongly represents health care reform, yet they majorly contribute to Republicans, who are notoriously against health care reform. Confused? I don't think I will ever understand what lobbyists really are trying to do, but I think that is the point.
Van Hollen, however, has a lot more money. A lot. Where Hassett had $135,000 in personal donations, Van Hollen raised $730,000. That's over 5 times as much as Hassett. The major political action committees that contributed to Van Hollen include: $20,000 from Realtors PAC, $15,000 from Concerned Realtors Committee, $13,250 from the WI Bankers Association, and $10,000 from Wal-Mart. What does that say about Van Hollen's interests? It would seem that if Van Hollen is following the money, his interests lie with Big Corporations and the Finance industry.
Van Hollen received over $30,000 from Lawyers & Lobbyists, though all the contributions were made from individual lawyers, making it harder to discern what firms are majorly representing him, and what the interests of those firms are. Though, from looking at his PAC contributions, I would guess the interests of the firms would largely revolve around realty, banks, and big business.
So what do I think about this? Hassett is supported by labor unions, while Van Hollen is supported by the big money industries of realty, finance, and big businesses. If you want someone who supports the "normal" workers of Wisconsin, the choice would be Hassett. If you want someone who supports the rich, big, industries, the choice would be Van Hollen. I would choose workers over big corporations. That's just me though. You can take the money as you see it.
Follow the Money Profiles:
Hassett on Wisconsin Democratic Campaign: Follow the Money
Hassett on Follow the Money.org
Van Hollen on Wisconin Democratic Campaign: Follow the Money
Van Hollen on Follow the Money.org
This is a great page on the Wisconsin Democratic Campaign: Follow the Money website that explains the money terminology:
Wisconsin Campaign Finance Glossary
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Blog Features
Hey all!
I just wanted to let you know some of the features I've created on the blog. If you look under the title of blog you will see a reel of news headlines. Click on any one of them to get the most up to date news about the race. Also, if you look in the right hand column of the page you will see a section call "pages." If you look at the link you will see that I have posted the web newsletter from Van Hollen. If you keep looking back over there I will keep that section updated with each newsletter that the candidates produce.
I hope you check out some of the new features and I will definitely be putting up some more soon!
Robyn
I just wanted to let you know some of the features I've created on the blog. If you look under the title of blog you will see a reel of news headlines. Click on any one of them to get the most up to date news about the race. Also, if you look in the right hand column of the page you will see a section call "pages." If you look at the link you will see that I have posted the web newsletter from Van Hollen. If you keep looking back over there I will keep that section updated with each newsletter that the candidates produce.
I hope you check out some of the new features and I will definitely be putting up some more soon!
Robyn
Let's Meet the Candidates-Part 2
Scott Hassett
Scott Hassett is the Democratic challenger for the Attorney General seat. Hassett was a trial attorney for 22 years and was chosen to lead the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in 2003. His main message is:
"It's time for a change in the Attorney General's office. People all around Wisconsin have urged me to run for Attorney General. They know we need an AG who doesn't politicize that office, who will help keep our communities safe, who will fight polluters and stand up for consumers."
Hassett has been quoted saying that Van Hollen knew about the Kratz sexting scandal. Essentially, Kratz is the Calumet County district attorney, and he sent some 30 sexually suggestive texts to a domestic abuse victim whose case he was prosecuting. If you don't know what that whole thing is about, check out these links:
According to Hassett, Van Hollen knew about the whole thing and did nothing. According Politifact.com, Hassett's accusations are false. They say that Van Hollen did pressure Kratz to turn himself in. But, honestly, that is all he did. He did not turn him in to the Governor, who has the power to remove district attorney's from office, he did not even really pursue a case against him. The Department of Justice had the case open for a few days, then closed it without even interviewing Kratz. I'm with Hassett on this one. Van Hollen should have done a lot more. Our attorney general should have the public's best interest in mind, and if a victim of abuse is scared to go to the police because her prosecutor is harassing her, and then the Department of Justice does nothing, then I think our Attorney General is NOT doing his job.
If you want to check out the Politifact.com argument yourself, here is the link:
And, if you want to check out Hassett's website, click here:
See you soon
Robyn
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Let's Meet the Candidates
J B Van Hollen
J B Van Hollen is the current incumbent holding the position of Wisconsin Attorney General. He is a Republican and he won his office in 2006. This is the list of the Department of Justice's accomplishments his website has chosen to list as the highlights of his incumbency: - Eliminated backlog of DNA evidence in Wisconsin State Crime Laboratories
- State Crime Labs worked 4,013 DNA cases in 2008 compared to 1,983 cases in 2007 - a 102% increase.
- Developed new relationship with ICE to arrest more than 300 criminal illegal aliens
- Expanded Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force by over 150 agencies compared to just 22 affiliates prior to 2007. Nearly 3oo arrests of child sex predators
- Recovered or entitled to recover more than $40 million in Medicaid fraud restitutions
- Awarded the Political Openness Advocate of the Year Award from the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council for "ongoing commitment" and Vigorous affirmation" of public records law
- Issues more formal and informal Attorney General Opinion than his two predecessors combined between 1996-2006
- Charged 17 individuals with crimes related to election fraud
- Judgements of more than $7.5 million in environmental enforcement actions.
Van Hollen has not really received a lot of press. On PolitiFact Wisconsin.com there is only 1 statement that has been made by VanHollen and only 1 by his challenger, Scott Hassett. Van Hollen claims that there at least 22,000 IP addresses in Wisconsin that have downloaded child pornography, and the site shows that this seems to be true. The statement by his opponent, however was a lie. Van Hollen is being painted in a pretty positive light at the moment.
The Rhinelander Daily News posted an article, most of which is Van Hollen's own opinion about himself, where Van Hollen says that "Wisconsin voters are frustrated with incumbent office holders...he's one of the few incumbents that voters have not expressed that frustration about." If you have watched TV at all lately, you would see all the negative campaigning that has been going on, so I would definitely agree that Wisconsin voters are frustrated, but I would like to see a poll that says whether its the incumbents they are frustrated with or just the politicians in general. About Van Hollen though, no one has seemed to discount his statements at this time.
A dim spot on Van Hollen's record is the accusations of him bringing forth a frivolous lawsuit against the Government Accountability board. His lawsuit revolved around that claims that the board wasn't doing the proper voter identity checks. On Van Hollen sides, they claim that this suit would have prevented fraudulent voters from casting ballots. On the opposing side, they claim that this would just cause long lines and confusion on voting day and many voters would end up not getting to cast their vote.
Van Hollen also tried to block the implement of the national health care bill earlier this year.
If you want to look up more on Van Hollen for yourself, here are some useful links:
Van Hollen's official campaign site
http://www.vanhollenforag.com/Home.aspx
Some of the news sources cited in this post
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/32540724.html
http://www.jsonline.com/newswatch/104520079.html
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/92707809.html
Politifacts Wisconsin: All statements that deal with JB Van Hollen
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/jb-van-hollen/statements/
Check back soon for my profile of the Challenger, Scott Hassett
L8er
Robyn
Monday, October 11, 2010
Welcome!
Hey all! Well, to start off this blog is going to follow the 2010 election of the Wisconsin Attorney General. I'm doing this blog for my Political Science class at Cardinal Stritch University.
So I figure the best place to start is the beginning. My first topic is: what the heck does the Attorney General do?!
Honestly, I have no idea, and I would be willing to bet that most people don't know what he does. The problem with finding the answer is that every site I have looked at have been extremely vague. He is the head of the Department of Justice. That's it. Most sights seem to think that that is enough information for the public. The only site that seemed to have more than a few lines of information was the National Association of Attorneys General. This is what they say the Attorney General has the power to do:
This is the best I could find online. It's pretty to the point, but not quite as in "lamens terms" as I would like. This answer still hasn't quite satisfied me though. SO I think it would be best to send the WI Attorney General a letter. I'm going to ask what he does on a daily basis, and maybe suggest that the public is provided with a good source of information on what the responsibilities of the Attorney General are. So the letter is going out tomorrow, and hopefully we will get a reply :)
As for what's coming up, check back in by Wednesday for full profiles of each of the candidates.
Until then, if you want to see what the NAAG website says about the Attorney General for yourself, here's the link:
http://www.naag.org/what_does_an_attorney_general_do.php
Until Wed
Peace
Robyn
So I figure the best place to start is the beginning. My first topic is: what the heck does the Attorney General do?!
Honestly, I have no idea, and I would be willing to bet that most people don't know what he does. The problem with finding the answer is that every site I have looked at have been extremely vague. He is the head of the Department of Justice. That's it. Most sights seem to think that that is enough information for the public. The only site that seemed to have more than a few lines of information was the National Association of Attorneys General. This is what they say the Attorney General has the power to do:
"authority to issue formal opinion to state agencies; act as public advocates in areas such as child enforcement, consumer protections, antitrust and utility regulation; propose legislation; enforce federal and state environmental laws; represent the state and state agencies before the state and federal courts; handle criminal appeals and serious statewide criminal prosecutions; institute civil suits on behalf of the state; represent the public's interests in charitable trust and solicitation; and operate victim compensation programs."
This is the best I could find online. It's pretty to the point, but not quite as in "lamens terms" as I would like. This answer still hasn't quite satisfied me though. SO I think it would be best to send the WI Attorney General a letter. I'm going to ask what he does on a daily basis, and maybe suggest that the public is provided with a good source of information on what the responsibilities of the Attorney General are. So the letter is going out tomorrow, and hopefully we will get a reply :)
As for what's coming up, check back in by Wednesday for full profiles of each of the candidates.
Until then, if you want to see what the NAAG website says about the Attorney General for yourself, here's the link:
http://www.naag.org/what_does_an_attorney_general_do.php
Until Wed
Peace
Robyn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)