Althouse: "Prosser and Kloppenburg have both engaged in their share of negative comments on the campaign trail."

March 31, 2011

"Prosser and Kloppenburg have both engaged in their share of negative comments on the campaign trail."

"Prosser has already played the liberal extremist card during candidate debates. And Kloppenburg has been relentless in labeling Prosser a Republican partisan. But because the candidates are about tapped out -- each has agreed to public financing spending limits -- the negative advertising to come will be carried out mostly by proxy. And thanks to the inflamed political atmosphere... Kloppenburg stands to gain the most."

So now, in this last weekend before the election, we're barraged with crazy ads that the candidates can't control, don't have time to respond to, and can benefit from without taking responsibility for. What an ugly mess!

29 comments:

MadisonMan said...: Go up to the Square and vote today, and then you can ignore everything!; 3/31/11, 12:35 PM
Anonymous said...: They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind.; 3/31/11, 12:35 PM
traditionalguy said...: My money is on Prosser. Prosser sounds like Prosecutor for law and order. Kloppenburg sounds like a Budwiser draft horse that will trample everything under her big hoofs. I got this straight from America's Politico.; 3/31/11, 12:38 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: What an ugly mess!

This is what democracy looks like.; 3/31/11, 12:41 PM
Triangle Man said...: Crazy ads are crazy! Thankfully Tivo lets me live with only the barest glimpses of them.; 3/31/11, 12:42 PM
former law student said...: Citizens United uber alles!; 3/31/11, 12:43 PM
themightypuck said...: I'm with Smilin' Jack. It may be a mess but any cure is going to be worse than the disease.; 3/31/11, 12:48 PM
sane_voter said...: What an ugly mess.

Kloppenburg can't help that she looks like a witch beaten with an ugly stick!; 3/31/11, 12:48 PM
traditionalguy said...: FLS... Right now it seems to be Sumo Judge uber alles. Where is Tom Delay when we really need him?; 3/31/11, 12:48 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: "What an ugly mess!"

aka free speech!; 3/31/11, 12:48 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Sane voter- heh- what I was thinking too. And would it surprise you to learn she was in the Peace Corps?; 3/31/11, 12:50 PM
foxlets14 said...: forgive me for this.....but kloppenburg's haido reminds me of one of the mark brothers....harpo as i recall.....; 3/31/11, 12:54 PM
lawyapalooza said...: "forgive me for this.....but kloppenburg's haido reminds me of one of the mark brothers....harpo as i recall....."

And Prosser is one good lookin' dude. Not surprising that women are held to a different standard, but disappointing.; 3/31/11, 1:05 PM
garage mahal said...: I think Kloppenburg is HAWT.; 3/31/11, 1:22 PM
DADvocate said...: That's Wisconsin for you. The (intentional?) failure to educate it's citizens in civil discourse and unbiased reasoning has made it a hotbed of thugocracy and entitlement mentality. Wisconsin is the new Chicago.; 3/31/11, 1:48 PM
PatHMV said...: fls, you reference Citizens United. Do you have any evidence that this money is being spent by corporations that would have been prohibited from spending by the law struck down in that case?

How do you know that these ads aren't being run by interest groups or PACs which were never limited by the Citizens United infringement on speech? Moreover, do you have any evidence that no individuals would be pooling their money to try to convince voters of their own point of view, even if Citizens United had not struck down parts of the law?

This illustrates the fundamental problem with campaign finance "reform" and related limitations on speech. The First Amendment exists. Its core protection is political speech. The Court long ago said you can't prohibit an individual from spending as much of his own money as he wants to try to influence an election. Thus, by restricting the amounts that can be given to or spent by candidates, the campaign finance "reform," in reality, only forces those who wish to influence the election (by providing resources to communicate a point of view to the public) to do so independently of the candidate, which facilitates the sort of extremism that Prof. Althouse notes in her post.

Absent the public financing "reform," then the candidates themselves would be collecting most of the money being spent on these negative ads, and candidates at least have some incentive to not be TOO nasty, lest the nastiness backfire on them. The independent expenditures have no such incentive, at all.; 3/31/11, 2:18 PM
Once written, twice... said...: Prosser is a piece of work. I heard him on the radio this morning saying that Kloppenburg was an extreme partisan because she gave contributions to Democrat candidates. Before becoming a judge Prosser was the Republican Majority Leader in the State Assembly for Christ sakes! He sounded like both a weasel
and a doofus this morning.; 3/31/11, 2:26 PM
Famous Original Mike said...: Louisiana is the Wisconsin of the South.; 3/31/11, 2:30 PM
Anonymous said...: If Klopperhead doesn't win, Judge Sumi will hear motions to set aside the election.; 3/31/11, 2:32 PM
foxlets14 said...: lawyapalooza....you're right....i'm sorry....should have exercised restraint....restraint is the hallmark of a gentleman....btw, prosser kind of reminds me of harry reid....oops...i'm working on it!; 3/31/11, 2:33 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: It doesn't look good, but I'm counting on the silent majority.

That didn't work during Obama's election, but I'm looking to see how much of a fluke that was.

Otherwise, I know who to blame.; 3/31/11, 2:40 PM
Michael K said...: The negative ads are not as worrying as the barely disguised promises to invalidate the law for political reasons. Marbury vs Madison this is not.; 3/31/11, 3:04 PM
former law student said...: PatHMV: Citizens United adds to the number of tv ads for and against. Practically speaking though, they just simplify and make direct expenditures that had to be washed through a 501(c)(4) See Elections Board v. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce for an example of how 501c4's concealed who was doing the speaking through them.; 3/31/11, 4:16 PM
David said...: Remember, this is just the beginning. The battle over public employee power and controlling government spending is just starting. Prosser-Kloppenburg is an opening skirmish, not a decisive battle.

Though it would be real nice to win.; 3/31/11, 5:04 PM
Anonymous said...: "So now, in this last weekend before the election, we're barraged with crazy ads that the candidates can't control, don't have time to respond to, and can benefit from without taking responsibility for. What an ugly mess! "

Bullshit.

It's not an ugly mess.

It's FREE SPEECH.

What you call "crazy" ads, I call "information."

Candidates DO have time to respond to them. They have all the way up until election day. That's when their time runs out. But just because their time runs out, doesn't mean OUR free speech runs out.

We're going to engages in free speech all the way up to and including ELECTION DAY and the candidates can just EAT SHIT if they don't like it.

This "mess" as you call it is "democracy."

Anyone who can't take the heat can get the fuck out of the kitchen.; 3/31/11, 5:09 PM
Anonymous said...: "ugly mess". Who cried Havoc!, and let slip the dogs of war?

Wasn't it the candidate who declared that the proper role of the "court [is] a coequal and independent branch of government that serves as a check and balance on overreaching by the executive and legislative branches"?

This blog won't, but I'll go on the record and say that that is a disqualifying statement for a judgeship.; 3/31/11, 6:35 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: So now, in this last weekend before the election, we're barraged with crazy ads that the candidates can't control, don't have time to respond to, and can benefit from without taking responsibility for. What an ugly mess!

You're only barraged if you're parked in front of the television. And you should be able to voice an opinion about candidates without having to be affiliated with one of them.

The voters should be discerning. They generally get whatever the majority deserves.

(See also: Obama)

Why, by the way, are judges elected and not appointed? They don't represent the people; they represent the law. Yes?; 3/31/11, 7:03 PM
former law student said...: This blog won't, but I'll go on the record and say that "court[s] [are] a coequal and independent branch of government that serves as a check and balance on overreaching by the executive and legislative branches"< is a disqualifying statement for a judgeship.

A knowledge of basic civics disqualifies one for a judgeship?

What are they teaching in schools these days?; 3/31/11, 9:04 PM
Anonymous said...: About Chittorgarh City

Chittorgarh Tourism Guide

Chittorgarh Virtual Tour; 8/21/11, 4:14 AM