Tell her how you really feel: A still shot from the ad that asked voters to tell Justice Rebecca Bradley “you believe in a fair and independent judiciary.”
An outside interest group that spent $1 million on TV and radio ads in support of Justice Rebecca Bradley in her bid for a 10-year term on the state Supreme Court was either disingenuous about its stated goal or else failed monumentally.
Wisconsin Alliance for Reform began running the ads two weeks before the Feb. 16 primary election, in which Bradley narrowly led a field of three candidates in snaring 45% of the vote. She will square off in the April 5 general election against appellate court Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg, who got 43%. A third candidate was eliminated.
The TV ad urged viewers to “tell Rebecca Bradley you believe in a fair and independent judiciary” while displaying the phone number for her Supreme Court office. The radio ad told listeners to “call Rebecca Bradley” at this number to impart the same.
But while these messages were heard, again and again, by millions of Wisconsin residents, only a few followed through, most to convey a contrary message.
Bradley, in response to an open records request by Isthmus, released records of 62 calls she deemed “possibly in response” to these ads. About half were voicemail messages retained by the office and half were “while you were out” memos taken on calls answered by staff.
Some of the calls failed to stake out a clear position on the race, instead requesting a radio interview or help with a legal problem. One caller asked: “I’m wondering if Rebecca Bradley is running for judicial court in Walworth County. I don’t think so.”
Of the remainder, 34 calls were critical of Bradley, some harshly. Only 16 were supportive, including four calls from the same person, a resident of Elkhorn.
“Keep up the good work, Judge Bradley,” this caller said on one voicemail. “I’m glad you were appointed by Gov. Scott Walker. I support him also.” Other positive calls ask for information on how to make a campaign contribution or obtain yards signs. Bradley said her office would have forwarded such messages to her campaign.
One caller, whom staff flagged as a supporter, asked Bradley “can you do something w/ your hair,” the memo relates. Another reads simply, “good luck.” It’s from a caller in Florida.
Bradley, whom Walker appointed to an open Supreme Court seat in October, has significant ties to conservative groups and the Republican Party. In her campaign to keep the seat, she has accepted help from the state GOP and attended GOP events. She insists she is nonpartisan.
Many of the 34 critical callers focused on these connections. Several stated that they do support a fair and independent judiciary but added, in one iteration, “which is why I will not be voting for you.” Other callers referred to Bradley as a “Walker puppet,” “Walker minion” and “Walker yes-lady.” One person said: “We will be voting for anybody but you. I don’t care if it’s a wino off the street.”
A caller who described himself as “a former Republican” blasted Bradley for her ties to the Republican National Lawyers Association and the conservative Federalist Society. Another opined, “I’m sure [Walker] has paid you well for your votes. If not, the Koch Brothers probably have.”
Some callers took issue with the ads themselves. One person found them “annoying”; another called them “improper and unethical” because they directed listeners to a “state-paid phone number and state-paid answering system.” But Bradley is not responsible for the Alliance’s decision to give out her office number — and given the response, probably wishes it hadn’t.
Bradley says her office received some messages for which no records were created. It only began archiving these after it learned that Isthmus had made a records request. The released records date to Feb. 4, two days after the TV ads first began airing.
But even if there were as many as 30 supportive calls, that means the Alliance spent an average of $33,333 generating each.
Wisconsin Alliance for Reform is a conservative nonprofit that purports to be a “coalition of concerned citizens and community leaders.” It lists a Madison P.O. box and gives a Milwaukee-area phone number.
The Alliance, which has also run attacks on Russ Feingold, a Democrat seeking to reclaim his U.S. Senate seat, is headed by Chris Martin, formerly a spokesman for the state Republican Party, and Luke Fuller, formerly chief of staff to a GOP lawmaker. The group does not reveal its funding sources or report its expenditures.
Martin, asked whether the ads failed in their stated purpose or whether they actually were meant to influence votes, responded with a statement: “We’re pleased to see that our grassroots lobbying efforts sparked a productive statewide dialogue on the important public policy issues facing our state’s judiciary as well as about Justice Bradley’s record and work on these issues.”
The Alliance spent $748,100 on broadcast TV ads, $140,064 on cable TV ads, and $116,065 on radio ads, according to One Wisconsin Now, a liberal advocacy group that paid a media tracking service. OWN executive director Scot Ross speculates that Bradley would not have finished first without the boost her campaign got from these ads.
The ads were controversial because they used footage of Bradley that was taken by her campaign and posted on her website. While Wisconsin law, pending court challenges, allows active coordination between a candidate’s campaign and an outside interest group engaged in running issue ads, Bradley has pledged that her campaign would not coordinate.
Issue ads are not subject to campaign disclosure precisely because they do not directly tell voters how to vote, instead claiming to encourage some other action — like calling the subject to impart a message, as in the Bradley ads. Critics say that is a ruse, particularly when these ads appear in the lead up to an election.
Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause in Wisconsin, says the Alliance’s pro-Bradley ads clearly belong in this category. “What we’re talking about here is a classic phony issue ad,” he says. “Their purpose is to sway votes, not educate voters about issues.”
There will likely be significant additional outlays on issue ads by outside interest groups supporting both candidates in the weeks prior to the April 5 election. A recent Marquette Law School Poll showed Bradley and Kloppenburg in a virtual dead heat, with a large number of undecided voters.
