Scott Walker's recall: Republican dollars v Democratic activists

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/04/scott-walkers-recall-republican-dollars

Version 0 of 1.

In the closely watched race with large implications nationally for organized labor and the American progressive coalition, on Tuesday 5 June, Wisconsin voters decide whether to recall Governor Scott Walker. Walker's startling dismantling of Wisconsin public service unions in the fall of 2010 prompted the largest, longest US protests since the war in Vietnam.

Protests developed into a momentous campaign to recall the Republican state senators and governor responsible for the anti-union initiative. Thousands of volunteers gathered almost a million signatures to get rid of Walker and, despite delays and obstructions, forced what is only the third gubernatorial recall election in American history.

In the process, Democrats and unions have made significant headway. They defeated two Republican senators and prompted a third to retire, giving Democrats a tie vote in the state senate, stalling further Walker onslaughts. A court decision stalled the anti-union initiative that unfairly exempted police and firefighters, which supported him politically.

Progressives hoped to culminate the campaign with a Walker recall. The race displays the dominant emerging Republican and Democratic electoral strategies in bold relief: Republicans depend on media advertising, while Democrats pin hopes on voter turnout.

A Wisconsin election law loophole permits recalled candidates to raise unlimited funds between the submission of recall petitions and the setting of election dates. Walker took advantage of that loophole to fly around the nation raising funds more typical of national than state elections. Since the start of 2011, he has raised $30m; over $20m in 2012, and $5m in the last month. That total does not include political action committee (Super Pac) funds that a Republican-dominated US supreme court released from donor or spending limits.

Republican donations are clearly inspired by Walker's anti-union agenda. An embarrassing recently released video clip recorded a billionaire donor asking Walker if Wisconsin could become a "red state", which equated in the donor's mind with "right to work". "Right to work" is code for states that restrict union organizing and representation severely.

Walker replied that his strategy was "divide and conquer", an indication, once more, that his public pronouncements diverge from private commitments. Walker has promised not to propose "right to work" legislation, such as the anti-labor laws neighboring Indiana passed in 2011, emboldened by the Wisconsin initiative. In public, Walker employs moderate, conciliatory rhetoric, while privately, he gushes over more anti-union stratagems to come.

While Walker and Republicans concentrated on fundraising, Democrats conducted a four-way primary battle that resulted in Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett facing Walker, a re-run of the 2010 election that Barrett narrowly lost. Barrett's $4m war chest would be an impressive amount for most state-wide elections, but Democrats' funds are no match for the scale of Republican donations raised nationally as Walker has become a Republican poster-child for anti-union policy.

Job growth has become a central issue. In his 2010 campaign, Walker promised to create a quarter million new Wisconsin jobs in his first four-year term. Recent National Bureau of Labor Statistics reports, however, show Wisconsin losing more jobs during Walker's tenure than any other state. Republicans have countered with state numbers that show new jobs marginally compensating for the prodigious total lost. The new jobs also pay lower wages, and offer fewer benefits, than the jobs that disappeared.

Barrett's campaign is appealing to Wisconsin's sense of decency, moderation and fair play. He emphasizes the widening federal investigation into Walker aides' political and partisan corruption while Walker was Milwaukee county executive. Barrett offers conciliation after a year and a half of unprecedented partisan rancor and disruptive political turmoil. He appeals to the state's civic culture that made Wisconsin the first state to authorize public service unions.

On Barrett's behalf, Democrats, unions and progressives have mounted a massive campaign to encourage voter participation. Fewer than 40% of eligible Americans participate at all in the electoral process, and votes in off-cycle elections draw even fewer. The outcome will likely depend on progressives' ability to persuade less motivated voters to get out to the polls.

Turnout is especially critical because the Americans who don't vote tend to be low-income, belong to ethnic minorities, and/or be immigrants of recent generations: the demographic groups who tend to vote Democratic, if they vote at all. As Republican donor dollars saturate television, radio and newspapers, and multiple mailings arrive at every likely voter's mailbox, the most important lesson will concern Democrats' ability to mobilize their vast, almost untapped base of potential popular support.

Much analysis and opinion has already focused on the implications of the Wisconsin recall for November presidential and congressional elections. Wisconsin national elections, however, often diverge from those <em>within</em> the state. Thus the state voted for Democratic presidents throughout the recent four-term administration of Republican Governor Tommy Thompson.

Ironically, a Republican victory could give Republicans false confidence in their saturation strategy of negative advertising just before elections, which worked for Mitt Romney during the Republican primaries. Win or lose in Wisconsin, if the recall teaches Democrats something about how to mobilize the 60% of the non-voting American electorate, that lesson could give them the numbers to clinch Obama's re-election in the fall.