Editorial embarrassment

By their nature, editorials are not objective. They offer opinions. They are not news stories.

But there is still an obligation to get the facts right. Often, that involves talking to someone on both sides of an issue.

But all too often editorials rely solely on what has already appeared in the same newspaper as a news story. When the story has a fact wrong, so does the editorial.

I'm not sure what the main malfunction was in this case, but the Journal Sentinel editorial on the State Elections Board case against Scott Walker was way off the beam.

The gist of the editorial is that Walker was treated unfairly, singled out for punishment, and fined more ($5000) than others who have committed similar offenses. The suggestion was that it was a partisan decision motivated by Walker's candidacy for governor.

Let's look a little more closely at the editorial. It says:

As Walker, a Republican candidate for governor, notes, the four Democrats on the board voted for the $5,000 forfeiture while the two Republicans and the Libertarian present at Wednesday's meeting voted against it. Walker also notes that the county Elections Commission reviewed the matter earlier this year and took no action.

FACT: The vote on whether Walker broke the law was bipartisan, 6-2. (I had incorrectly said 7-1.) The 5-3 split was over the size of the penalty. The fifth vote for the $5,000 fine was from the non-partisan appointee of the State Supreme Court.

ANOTHER FACT: The County Elections Commission never considered this issue, despite Walker's claims. The State Elections Board's attorney noted that in a memo to the board, which was available to the news media and even on this blog before the meeting. Walker's claim is simply not true, but the editorial prints it as fact. Walker's reply to the State Elections Board complaint said, under oath, that the County Election Commission had already reviewed the matter and found no violation. Board members questioned Walker's representative, John Hiller, who finally admitted that the County Election Commission did not review it or decide it.

Back to the editorial:

In the automated calls, Walker urged residents to call their county supervisors and tell them not to raise taxes and to maintain Walker's tax freeze. In the haste to get the calls out, Walker said the campaign and the private company that handled the calls failed to include a disclaimer. When Walker's campaign treasurer, Jim Villa, received one of the calls himself, he realized that the required disclaimer was missing and told the private company to stop the calls. Walker said his campaign did not know how many calls didn't contain a disclaimer, but he assumed "it was probably a majority, if not all" because most of the calls were made within a short time span.

FACT: John Hiller, not Jim Villa, is Walker's campaign treasurer. Villa at the time of the violation was a principal at the Markesan Group, the consulting firm working for Walker's campaign. Villa's firm contracted with a phoning firm to make the calls. (Villa is now Walker's chief of staff, but that's another story.) It was Hiller who received a call and told the campaign it needed a disclaimer. "Haste to get the calls out" is no defense; campaigns are always scrambling to meet deadlines under pressure, but are still expected to obey the campaign laws.

The editorial:

Walker makes another good point. He and others note that past infractions that were similar in nature have either been dismissed by the board or punished with much smaller fines, often around $500. That, of course, doesn't mean those decisions were right, but it does raise legitimate questions about precedence and the board's consistency. Walker said he was "flabbergasted" by the board's decision. Mike McCabe, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, said he, too, was surprised because the board traditionally has "looked the other way."

FACT: The large penalty was imposed not because Walker left a disclaimer off a phone call, but because his story kept changing and, as a lawyer would say, was at variance with the facts. The board simply didn't believe Walker's story, caught him in a lie about the County Election Commission, and was not pleased. The stories about whether the disclaimer was accidentally left off the call, or whether the Walker campaign ever intended to have one in the first place, didn't match up, either. Thus the heavier penalty was for the perceived coverup.

The editorial concludes:

One reason for that, McCabe correctly points out, is that the board is too partisan, dominated by the two major parties. The solution is a Senate bill that would merge the ethics and elections boards and put non-partisan citizen members in the majority to make the board more independent and effective.

FACT: The 6-2 vote to find Walker guilty of the violation was bipartisan. The 5-3 vote to fine him $5,000 included the Supreme Court representative, exactly the type of "non-partisan citizen member" McCabe suggests. The board has nine members -- 4 Democrats, 3 Republicans, one Libertarian, and the non-partisan member. (One of the Republicans, appointed by Speaker John Gard, was absent from Wednesday's meeting. Gard supports Walker's primary opponent, Rep. Mark Green. No editorial comment, just a fact.)

The editorial demonstrates what happens you only hear one side of a story. The Journal Sentinel apparently talked to Walker, talked to an outside campaign observer, but didn't bother to talk to the county supervisors who brought the complaint, their lawyer, or any of the elections board members who voted to fine Walker. Even the tiniest bit of due diligence would have produced a much different editorial.

And a different response from Walker would have produced a different result at the State Elections Board. A candidate who admits a mistake, takes responsibility for it, and says he will make sure it won't happen again will get a sympathetic ear, from regulators and the public. One who tries to deny responsibility or cover up gets some bad press and a $5,000 fine.