Frederica Freyberg:
And public financing can now be available to state Supreme Court candidates under a bipartisan supported Impartial Justice Bill. That's the topic of our next segment. Joining us to discuss the significance of public financing for Supreme Court races is Jay Heck, the executive director of Common Cause in Wisconsin.

Jay Heck:
Good to be here. Thanks.

Frederica Freyberg:
So what is your reaction to passage of this?

Jay Heck:
Well, it's a sweet victory. It's 10 years in the making. This is the most significant campaign finance reform victory since 1977, when public financing was instituted in Wisconsin. And I think it will do a lot to change the culture and the tenor of our Supreme Court races, which as you know over the past four years, three years, have been among the nastiest in the country. So this is a very big, important first step. It's not all that we need to do, but it's still significant. In my businesses victories don't happen very often, so I’m not even sure this one really has, but it has! As I say, we're very gratified. Really it's because of two things. It's because of those elections which disgusted people. I think it's also because the legislative leadership finally realized this is something that had to be done and many, many people weighed in favor of it, many citizens.

Frederica Freyberg:
The check-off would go from what to what?

Jay Heck:
Currently $1 to $3, of which $2 would go for the Supreme Court, called the Democracy Trust Fund. In addition, if that didn't supply enough money for the races, then the rest would come out of the general fund.

Frederica Freyberg:
How much would a Supreme Court candidate be eligible for?

Jay Heck:
They'd be eligible for $400,000. $100,000 in the primary, $300,000 in the general election. If they abide by the spending limits, all of the money would come from the public. There would be no private fund-raising. That's important because you don't want judges having to appear at the court with people coming before them who have given campaign contributions.

Frederica Freyberg:
That pales in comparison to the kind of money that could be spent if you don't choose the public option.

Jay Heck:
That's true. There’s additional matching funds. If your opponent decides to exceed the limit, you would get matching funds and funds to combat the outside expenditures. We still need to regulate and enforce the disclosure of issue ads which dominated in 2008, the Gableman-Butler race. The piece we're waiting for is a disclosure bill. We have to wait until the United States Supreme Court rules in just a couple of weeks on a higher case, Citizens United v. FEC, which will give us direction about what we can and cannot do in Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:
What do you think about your chances in terms of getting that passed once the Supreme Court decides?

Jay Heck:
Well, if the decision isn't too drastically bad at the Supreme Court level, I think it's excellent. The votes are there. There’ll be strong bipartisan support. Republicans and Democrats all are disgusted by these outside spending groups who come into Wisconsin, they don't tell us who they are and they spend unregulated, unlimited money. Now that that's hit the Supreme Court, people are very concerned about it. That reform is very important. It's the piece still left undone.

Frederica Freyberg:
So that is probably where the critics of this legislation come from, the ones who say this doesn't go nearly far enough?

Jay Heck:
Well, it makes sense to do that separately because the United States Supreme Court is going to have the last word on the issue ad disclosure and regulation. To have tied it to the public financing bill that just passed wouldn't have made any sense because it could have rendered the whole thing unconstitutional if the higher court decides to strike down issue ad disclosure and regulation. We have plenty of time to pass that if the United States Supreme Court is okay. We could do it in January for the 2010 elections. Not just for Supreme Court races, but for the governor's race and legislature in 2010. That is desperately needed.

Frederica Freyberg:
Meanwhile, what is your reaction to the Supreme Court itself voting last week that campaign contributions to a particular candidate for the Supreme Court don't merit recusal on the part of the justice?

Jay Heck:
It was outrageous. The current code is very clear. There needs to be clarification about when a judge should recuse themself. Currently justices were able to recuse themselves at their own decision. What this says now is that a campaign contribution doesn't necessarily mean you have to disqualify yourself. It was written by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and the realtors and four to three they accepted it. The Impartial Justice Bill will take away that because the money that will be publicly funded, it won't come from private individuals. So that helps to solve the problem. But the other problem of course is the issue ads. We need to tackle that. We have to complete that. It's critical.

Frederica Freyberg:
All right. That's next. Jay Heck, thanks very much.

Jay Heck:
Thank you, Fred.