Home / Commentary / Tracking pro-mining cash gets dicey

Tracking pro-mining cash gets dicey

By Bill Lueders

Bill Lueders is the Money and Politics Project director at the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism.

About 12 hours into the Jan. 23 state legislative hearing on a proposed bill to revamp the state’s metallic mining laws, a citizen who’d waited all day gave some unwelcome testimony.

“Where did this bill come from?” asked Victoria McMurray, rhetorically. “Big business is taking over our government by making campaign contributions and the legislative recipients are responding by allowing laws to pass that hurt our state and enrich donors.”

McMurray began listing donation totals to legislators from pro-mining interests, as culled from the nonpartisan Wisconsin Democracy Campaign’s contribution database. State Sen. Tom Tiffany, R-Hazelhurst, interrupted to say, “You need to write a letter to the editor.” Then, after McMurray finished and one other speaker was heard, he gaveled the hearing to a close, with dozens of people still waiting.

The Democracy Campaign subsequently reported that mining bill proponents have given more than $15 million since 2010 to Scott Walker, who was elected governor that year, and to members of the Legislature. Meanwhile, only about $25,000 has flowed from environmental groups registered against the bill.

Here’s how the Democracy Campaign phrased it: “Walker, who has campaigned around the state to gin up support for changing rules to attract mining projects, received $11.34 million.” This compared to just $650 to Walker from environmental groups opposed to the bill.

Cullen Werwie, the governor’s press secretary, declined to comment on the report, saying only: “Gov. Walker supports reforming the mining process to allow for safe and environmentally sound mining in Wisconsin, which will create thousands of new private sector jobs.”

Yet the methodology used to produce such tallies is open to question.

The Democracy Campaign’s analysis includes contributions from the political action committees of mining bill backers, including trade groups for construction, banking and finance, road builders, restaurants and taverns, as well as from individuals connected to these groups.

If Acme Corp. belongs to Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, a lobby group that backs the bill, then the $200 that Acme employee Joe Blough gave to state Sen. Wile E. Coyote would count as a pro-mining contribution, even if Blough opposes the mining bill, and only gave because Coyote is a loyal Acme customer.

Mike McCabe, the Democracy Campaign’s executive director, calls the analysis “as surgical as the data allow us to be.” Donors don’t have to say why they give, but they are supposed to say where they work, for contributions of more than $100. That’s a useful tool, in an inexact science.

A few years back, for example, a state senator objected to a donation from his mother being tallied as special interest cash, because of where she worked. “I’d be the first to acknowledge that she may have had other reasons for contributing,” McCabe said.

The Democracy Campaign lists Sen. Alberta Darling, R-River Hills, as getting $467,000 from mining bill proponents, more than any other lawmaker. The Democrat with the highest listed take is state Rep. Sandy Pasch, of Shorewood, with $73,000.

Darling, vice-chairwoman of the Senate committee that oversees mining, backed a similar mining bill introduced last session. Pasch voted against it and rips the bill as coming from “politically connected mining interests.” Both lawmakers, McCabe said, have high receipts because of their hotly contested 2011 state Senate recall race — against each other.

But the Democracy Campaign uses the same system as such respected national money trackers as the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics. McCabe said his group might be more selective, only counting contributions from interest group subcategories such as “mining,” not broad categories such as “natural resources.”

Moreover, McCabe notes, interest groups cast the same wide net when testifying on proposed legislation: They purport to speak for their members, and all those their members employ or represent.

And, just maybe, laying claim to all that backing makes it easier to be heard.

One comment

  1. In Bill Lueders February 8, 2013 article “Tracking pro-mining cash gets dicey” he made the comment regarding the Democracy Campaign’s methodology of analyzing champagne contributions from mining special interests as “open to question”. Under his picture it says “Bill Lueders is the Money and Politics Project director at the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism”. Journalism is the reporting of events. In this case it was about an individual exposing how special interest money is influencing our State Government and the powers that be squelching citizen input. What he wrote is not Journalism it is opinion trying to pass itself off as Journalism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *