• >>> Home
• Campaign Finance Complaint
• Reply to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin
• Additions to Donald Fish Deposition
• Answer to State Elections Board Questions
• Answer Two to State Elections Board Questions
• Evidence: Documents 31–47
• Evidence: Documents 48–64
• Evidence: Documents 65–67
• Evidence: Documents 68–70
• Letter to the State Elections Board
• Email to Sen. Darling and Rep. Wasserman
• 12-Step Program for More Ethical Government
• Donald Fish Public Statements
• Contact Donald Fish

Answer to State Elections Board Questions

CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLAINT

BEFORE THE WISCONSIN STATE ELECTIONS BOARD

DONALD FISH,

Complainant

Against                                                                        ElBd Cpt. 01-14

DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF WISCONSIN,

Respondent.

1. The following statements are true or are believed by me to be true, and they are based on personal knowledge and documents in my possession.

GENERAL STATEMENT

2.1 New information: This brief is intended to answer George Dunst’s November 6, 2002 request for more information on the electronic voter lists given to the DPW/CC by state employees, however, I believe it is important to provide the Wisconsin State Elections Board (hereinafter, the ‘Board’) with two pieces of new information I have come upon.

2.2. First, the Board previously asked for information on anyone who failed to receive electronic voter lists after requesting them from the Assembly Democratic Caucus (hereinafter, ‘ADC’) or the Senate Democratic Caucus (hereinafter, ‘SDC’). As an answer to this request, I provide the following relevant new information:

2.3. With respect to electronic voter list requests, in the calendar year 2000, by Brian Blanchard’s election campaign for Dane County District Attorney, according to a September 18, 2002 ruling in Case No. 01JD6, by Judge Sarah O’Brien, Circuit Court, Branch 16, in the Blanchard conflict of interest hearing, Andrew Gussert and Branda Weix, who were SDC employees during the time covered by my complaint, “refused the Blanchard campaign request for lists.”

2.4. It is noteworthy that Mr. Gussert and Ms. Weix’s refusal is exactly how the system setup by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin Coordinated Campaign (hereinafter, ‘DPW/CC’) was intended to work. Candidates like Mr. Blanchard were supposed to get their voter lists from the DPW/CC. On page 25 of Document 3, which was previously provided to the Board, it states, “non-member candidates,” referring to DPW-affiliated candidates who were not members of the DPW/CC, which would include Mr. Blanchard’s campaign, “will be allowed to purchase data on a case by case basis.”

2.5. Second, there is some additional relevant new information which also relates to the Blanchard hearing cited in 2.3 above. I have been told that during the testimony of three former caucus employees, Daniel Langer (ADC), Michael White (ADC), and Ms. Weix, it was acknowledged that one of their state-funded duties was to create voter lists that would be used by others. Furthermore, in the front section of the October 27, 2002 Wisconsin State Journal, an article under the byline Dee J. Hall reported, “In September, new weight was added to the allegations when three former Democratic caucus staffers testified under oath that they worked on voter lists from their taxpayer-funded offices.”

3. Mr. Dunst’s January 9, 2003 request for information: As the work on this Answer was being completed, Mr. Dunst requested, on behalf of the Board, in a January 9, 2003 mail correspondence, additional information. This request is fulfilled in the Addendum at the end of this Answer.

4.1 Introduction: The remainder of this Answer, except the Addendum discussed in 3 above, is intended to fulfill a request made by Mr. Dunst, on behalf of the Board, in a November 6, 2002 mail correspondence, where he asks for more information on the electronic voter lists given to the DPW/CC by state employees. The correspondence stated, “What the Board’s staff would like from you is commentary or explanation regarding the ‘fields’ of information you testified were part of the data give to you by state employees. As I recall your testimony, the data that were given to you contained some ‘fields’ that served a campaign purpose only. The Board’s staff would like you to provide as much information as you have about all the ‘fields’ of information that were collected by state employees as part of the voter list, or that were added later, before being transmitted to you for addition to the CC voter data base. Do you have any copies of the voter lists that were transferred to you that would show ‘fields’ of information that relate to campaign purposes only, like contribution history or lawn sign history. Any Coordinated Campaign documents (that you saved) that show the types (or ‘fields’) of information that were being collected by state employees on state time would be helpful.”

4.2. To fulfill this request, I researched available backups of computerized data files as well as any available paper documents. While not all electronic voter lists given to the DPW/CC by state employees are discussed in this Answer, I believe those that are discussed here provide a very good representation. Electronic voter lists selected for discussion here include most of those provided to the DPW/CC by the ADC and SDC in the calendar year 2000, as well as electronic voter lists discussed in detail in my Complaint or documents or briefs previously provided to the Board.

4.3. Some statements in this Answer are based on my extensive personal experience in using electronic voter lists for electioneering. I was professionally employed or otherwise retained to develop and maintain electronic voter lists in the calendar year 1994 and in the calendar years 1996 through 2001.

5.1 System of reference: The following system of reference is being used to simplify the statements below:

5.2. Assembly Districts are referred to as ‘AD’ plus the district number. For example, Assembly District No. 1 is referenced as ‘AD1.’ The same system is used for State Senate Districts except the district number is preceded by ‘SD’ in place of ‘AD.’ For example, State Senate District No. 2 is referenced as ‘SD2.’

6.1 Documents: For each Assembly District and State Senate District discussed in this Answer, one or more documents have been previously provided to the Board or one or more documents have been included with this brief. Documents 31 through Document 64 are ‘field structure’ documents which list the number and name of each field in electronic lists along with other relevant information. Furthermore, for all districts discussed here, except SD28, a copy of the data from the actual electronic voter lists involved is included on one of two accompanying CD-ROM disks (hereinafter, ‘Document 65’ and ‘Document 66’).

6.2. The table below indicates which Assembly Districts (left side) and which State Senate Districts (right side) correspond to which documents. Documents 1 through 30 refer to paper documents previously provided to the Board. Documents 31 through 66 refer to paper and electronic documents provided to the Board with this Answer.

ANSWER

7. This section answers Mr. Dunst’s request (see 4.1 above). The topics include:

• Electronic voter lists for districts without a Democratic incumbent
• Link to the DPW/CC master statewide electronic voter list
• Supporter, lawn sign, volunteer, and donor identifications
• Extensive and detailed voter history and related data fields
• Other electioneering data fields, etc.
• DPW/CC involvement not at arms length

8.1 Electronic voter lists for districts without a Democratic incumbent: According to Mr. Dunst’s November 6, 2002 mail correspondence, both the Assembly Chief Clerk, Pat Fuller, and the State Senate Chief Clerk, Don Schneider, agreed that the compiling and development of the electronic voter lists involved in my Complaint, “must be for a legitimate legislative/constituent purpose, (newsletters, bulletins, position statements and similar ilk).”… It is therefore noteworthy that a substantial number of the electronic voter lists involved in my Complaint were for Assembly Districts and State Senate Districts without elected Democratic Party legislative incumbents. Therefore the elected membership of the ADC and SDC had no constituents to serve in these districts. In the light of this, it is apparent these electronic voter lists, provided to the DPW/CC by the ADC and SDC, were intended for electioneering purposes, and it is not reasonable to believe these lists were compiled and developed for legitimate legislative/constituent purposes.

8.2. This is true for nine of 16, or 56 percent of Assembly Districts discussed in this Answer, including:

8.3. This is also true for four of 18, or 22 percent of State Senate Districts discussed in this Answer, including:

9.1 Link to the DPW/CC master statewide electronic voter list: An IDNUMBER98 data field was contained on many of the electronic voter lists provided to the DPW/CC by the ADC or SDC, including all but one of the Assembly Districts and one of the State Senate Districts discussed in this Answer. This is noteworthy because this field established a direct relational link with the DPW/CC master statewide electronic voter list and because, by its nature, this field can serve no other purpose.

9.2. This was true for 15 of 16, or 94 percent of Assembly Districts discussed in this Answer, including all districts except AD82 which was compiled and developed prior to the introduction of this data field.

9.3. This was also true for 17 of 18, or 94 percent of State Senate Districts discussed in this Answer, including all districts except SD28 which was compiled and developed prior to the introduction of this data field.

9.4. The inclusion of the IDNUMBER98 data field was significant because of the highly partisan nature of the DPW/CC list it relates to. The information contained on this list, which I personally helped develop, included:

• Data fields identifying or rating individuals or households as to their support for political candidates, for all election cycles from 1990 through 1998, including candidates for the offices of Wisconsin Governor, U.S. Senator, U.S. House of Representatives, Wisconsin Assembly, and Wisconsin State Senate.
• Data fields identifying or rating individuals or households as Democratic, Republican, or independent.
• Data fields providing recent Democratic National Committee-generated voting statistics.
• Data fields identifying or rating individuals as to their willingness to donate money to political candidates.
• Data fields identifying or rating individuals as to their willingness to volunteer for Democratic Party candidates.
• Data fields identifying or rating individuals or households as to their willingness or to put up or display law signs for political candidates.

9.5. In the light of 9.1 through 9.4 above, it is apparent the IDNUMBER98 data field was intended for electioneering purposes, and it is not reasonable to believe this field served any legitimate legislative/constituent purpose.

10.1 Supporter, lawn sign, volunteer, and donor identifications: 9.1 through 9.5 above refer to an IDNUMBER98 data field that established a direct relational link with the DPW/CC master statewide electronic voter list. Much of the partisan information contained on this DPW/CC list was originally provided to the DPW/CC by the ADC and SDC in the calendar year 1998 and before. I previously provided the Board with Document 11 and Document 12 which describe the content of electronic voter lists for AD82 and SD28, respectively, and I believe these examples well illustrate the kind of partisan information that was provided to the DPW/CC by the ADC and SDC during this period.

10.2. In addition to those data fields discussed elsewhere in this Answer, AD82 also contained at least 17 data fields that clearly served electioneering purposes, and it is not reasonable to believe these fields served any legitimate legislative/constituent purpose. These fields include:

10.3. In addition to those data fields discussed elsewhere in this Answer, SD28 also contained at least six data fields that clearly served electioneering purposes, and it is not reasonable to believe they served any legitimate legislative/constituent purpose. These fields include:

11.1 Extensive and detailed voter history and related data fields: Several data fields developed to contain extensive and detailed voter history were provided on most of the electronic voter lists provided to the DPW/CC by the ADC and SDC, including all Assembly Districts and all State Senate Districts discussed in this Answer. Furthermore, the inclusion of these fields was one of the most significant and attractive elements of the electronic voter lists involved because these fields helped forecast the likeliness an individual or household was to vote, a key concern for those involved in electioneering. It should be noted that these fields were often difficult to compile and the process of appending them could involve a series of complicated procedures.

11.2. AD82 included the following 38 voter history data fields: JLY 97, JNE 3 97, JNE 10 97, MAY 97, APR 97, FEB 97, FEB 96, MAR 96, SEP 96, NOV 96, FEB 95, APL 95, JUN 95, OCT 95, NOV 95, DEC 95, FEB 94, MAR 94, APR 94, SEP 94, NOV 94, NOV30 93, NOV2 93, AUG 93, APL 93, FEB 93, NOV 92, SEP 92, JNE9 92, JNE2 92, APL 92, FEB 92, 4/97, 2/97, 3/96, 2/96, 4/95, and REF.

11.3. All the remaining electronic voter lists discussed in this Answer utilized another method to label voter history data fields. These fields begin with one or two alphabetic characters indicating in which month the election was held. In this system, ‘F’ = February, ‘M’ = March, ‘A’ = April, ‘JE’ = June, ‘JU’ = July, ‘S’ = September, and ‘N’ = November. The month indicator is followed by two numerals indicating in which year the election was held. For example, the November 1998 general election is referenced as ‘N98.’

11.4. The Assembly Districts discussed in this Answer all contained the identical 15 voter history data fields, except for AD82, which contained the 38 voter history data fields discussed in 11.2 above. This is an average of 16.4 voter history data fields per Assembly District.

11.5. The State Senate Districts discussed in this Answer contained from four to 26 voter history data fields or an average of 14.6 voter history data fields per State Senate District.

11.6. All Assembly Districts discussed in this Answer contained a data field intended to store the month or day individuals last registered to vote. For most districts this field was labeled REGDATE, except for AD28, which was labeled DOR.

11.7. This was also true for 13 of 18, or 72 percent of the State Senate Districts discussed in this Answer, including:

¹ In SD10 the data field was labeled REG_DATE.
² In SD28 the data field was labeled RDATE.

11.8. Furthermore, all Assembly Districts discussed in this Answer contained a data field intended to indicate if an individual ever voted or requested to vote by absentee ballot. In most districts this field was labeled ABSENTEE, except for AD82, which was labeled ABS.

11.9. This was also true for 16 of 18, or 89 percent of State Senate Districts discussed in this Answer, all except for SD12 and SD29. In all 16 State Senate District examples the data field was labeled ABSENTEE.

11.10. The extensive and detailed election history, registration date, and absentee voting data fields discussed in 11.1 through 11.9 above all had important and fundamental electioneering applications.

11.11. Voter history and registration date data fields were particularly useful in my work, and are particularly useful in general electioneering work, because they provide valuable and often necessary information that enhances a computer analyst’s capability to calculate an individual or household’s likeliness to vote in a given election. More specifically, the content from these fields are input into algorithmic calculations which are used to select individuals and households for get-out-the-vote, persuasion, fundraising, polling, and other electioneering efforts.

11.12. For example, as a rule of thumb it is considered ineffective to make persuasion telephone calls to individuals who are the least likely to vote, and conversely such calls are considered more effective as the likeliness of voting increases. It is rarely a good use of resources to ask someone to vote for you if their likeliness of going to the polls is near zero percent. It is much more effective to try to persuade individuals who are more likely to vote, and the voter history and registration date data fields provided to the DPW/CC by state employees contained important information for making these selections.

11.13. For a second example, as a rule of thumb it is considered ineffective to make get-out-the-vote telephone calls to individuals who are the least likely to vote as well as to individuals who are the most likely to vote. Trying to persuade such individuals to vote is unlikely to change their already consistent habit of voting or not voting. It is more effective to try to persuade those who occasionally or sometimes vote, particularly if they are already registered to vote, and the voter history and registration date data fields provided to the DPW/CC by state employees contained important information for making these selections.

11.14. The absentee voting data fields were also very useful in my work, and are very useful in general electioneering work, because they provide valuable and often necessary information that enhances a computer analyst’s capability to calculate an individual’s likeliness to vote by absentee ballot. More specifically, the content from this data field is input into algorithmic calculations which are used to select individuals and households for partisan efforts to get out the absentee vote.

11.15. In the light of 11.1 through 11.14 above, it is apparent the voter history, registration date, and absentee voting data fields, provided to the DPW/CC by the ADC or SDC, were intended for electioneering purposes, and it is not reasonable to believe these fields served any legitimate legislative/constituent purpose.

12.1 Other electioneering data fields, etc.: Most of the electronic voter lists involved in my complaint also contained other data fields that appear to have been maintained for electioneering purposes. For example, many of the lists included residential address information parsed into separate address elements data fields, such as house number, street name, and unit number. Such a field structure makes it easy to sort households for door-to-door canvassing. This was true for 15 of 16, or 94 percent of Assembly Districts discussed in this Answer, all except AD82, as well as for 17 of 18, or 94 percent of State Senate Districts discussed in this Answer, all except SD28. Typically the relevant data fields were labeled, ‘HN,’ ‘PREDIR,’ ‘SN,’ ‘STYPE,’ ‘POSTDIR,’ ‘UNIT_DESIG,’ and ‘UNIT_NUM.’

12.2. As a second example, most of the electronic voter lists, provided to the DPW/CC by the ADC and SDC, contained one or more data fields for residential telephone numbers. While it is true that some legislators mail legitimate state information to constituents, I know of no similar program for telephoning constituents, other than for electioneering, which is noteworthy due to the relatively high expense of maintaining current residential telephone numbers. This was true for all Assembly Districts and all State Senate Districts discussed in this Answer. Typically the relevant data fields were labeled ‘AREACODE’ and ‘PHONE.’

12.3. There were many other data fields on the electronic voter lists, provided to the DPW/CC by the ADC and SDC, that may have had solely an electioneering purpose, including fields intended for date or month of birth, gender, internal ‘voter’ number, and other demographics.

12.4. Finally, but not last, it is noteworthy that voter lists were not the best source of data if the intention was to serve constituents because many constituents are not registered to vote. Other potentially less expensive lists were likely available which would have encompassed a greater percentage of the public, including lists from vendors like power companies and telephone companies.

13 DPW/CC involvement not at arms length: It is important to point out that the DPW/CC played an active role in nurturing and developing the system that provided the electronic voter lists involved in my Complaint, including all Assembly Districts and all State Senate Districts discussed in this Answer. Furthermore, the transactions that eventually resulted in the DPW/CC receiving electronic voter lists from the ADC and SDC were not at ‘arms length’ as would be expected when acquiring public information. The electronic voter lists involved resulted from an extraordinary relationship that, in effect, produced a virtual pipeline of state-owned data expressly directed to the DPW/CC. Much of this has already been discussed, often in detail, in my Complaint and subsequent briefs previously provided to the Board, so I will not use this Answer to restate these allegations. However, any additional questions regarding these allegations are welcome.

ADDENDUM

14. This section is intended to fulfill a request made by Mr. Dunst, on behalf of the Board, in a January 9, 2003 mail correspondence, where he asks for more information on four subjects. Because the time was short for preparing this Addendum, the statements below should not be considered comprehensive but rather a good representation of the issues involved.

15. Mr. Dunst asked, “(1) what are those fields that clearly had a non-legislative, political purpose and that were compiled by state employees on state time?” The answer to this request is the same as the answer that is the primary subject of this brief, including 4.1 through 13 above.

16. Mr. Dunst asked, “(2) which state employees were compiling data that were delivered to the Coordinated Campaign and that included those fields?” The employees that were most involved in the technical processing of the electronic voter lists, and whom I know the name of include:

17.1 Mr. Dunst asked, “(3) what evidence shows that these inappropriate fields had been compiled by state employees on state time?”

17.2. Much of this evidence comes from the Blanchard hearing cited in 2.2 above. Restating from 2.5 above, I have been told that during the testimony of three former caucus employees, Mr. Langer, Mr. White, and Ms. Weix, it was acknowledged that one of their state-funded duties was to create voter lists that would be used by others. Furthermore, in the front section of the October 27, 2002 Wisconsin State Journal, an article under the byline Dee J. Hall reported, “In September, new weight was added to the allegations when three former Democratic caucus staffers testified under oath that they worked on voter lists from their taxpayer-funded offices.”

17.3. Additional evidence can be found in my Complaint and the documents and briefs I previously provided to the Board. For example, Document 5 is a copy of a one-page computer screen printout of the ‘Statistics’ tab of the ‘Properties’ dialog box from a Microsoft Word document that indicates an electioneering-related document (previously provided to the Board as Document 6) was last electronically saved using state resources.

17.4. As another example, Document 7 is a copy of a one-page computer screen printout of the ‘Statistics’ tab of the ‘Properties’ dialog box from a Microsoft Excel electronic spreadsheet that indicates an electioneering-related document (previously provided to the Board as Document 8) was last electronically saved using state resources.

17.5. As another example, Document 10 is a copy of a one-page computer screen printout of the ‘Summary’ tab of the ‘Properties’ dialog box from a Microsoft Access electronic database that indicates AD82, discussed in the Answer above, was authored using state resources.

17.6. As another example, Documents 13-27 include several electronic mailings to me from former ADC and SDC technology employees, which included Mr. Langer, Ms. Roller, Ms. Weix, and Mr. White, that concerned electronic voter lists or related issues, but which were transmitted from their state accounts.

17.7. As another example, I have detailed in my Complaint and subsequent briefs previously provided to the Board, that I have personally witnessed voter data entry work being performed by ACD employees at a state facility.

17.8. As another example, I have detailed in my Complaint and subsequent briefs previously provided to the Board, that I have personally witnessed meetings where it was made clear state employees were compiling and developing electronic voter lists for the DPW/CC. One such meeting occurred on June 7, 2000 and included the participation of Tanya Bjork (ADC), Mr. Gussert, Mr. Langer, Angelique Pirozzi (DPW/CC), Ms. Roller, Teresa Vilmain (Gore 2000), Ms. Weix, Mr. White, and a representative from the Sen. Herbert Kohl 2000 campaign who I do not know. JoAnna Richard participated by telephone for Atty. Gen. Jim Doyle. The public source of the electronic voter lists provided to the DPW/CC was clearly brought up at the meeting and was even made light of. I remember, as the meeting was breaking up, it was joked, “Will state taxpayers be getting a credit next year for supplying the data.”

17.9. Finally, evidence can be found in the fact that the alleged separation between the ADC and Assembly Democratic Campaign Committee, and the SDC and the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee, has been discredited by the Board.

18.1 Mr Dunst asked, “(4) what evidence shows that the Coordinated Campaign entered those data in its data base or otherwise used those data for political purposes?”

18.2. Much of this evidence can be found in my Complaint and the documents and briefs I previously provided to the Board. For example, Document 6, titled “Response to Draft #1 Voter File Standards,” is a Microsoft Word document concerning negotiations between the DPW/CC, ADC, and SDC regarding standards for electronic voter lists to be provided to the DPW/CC by the ADC and SDC.

18.3. As another example, Document 8 is a copy of the one-page Microsoft Excel electronic spreadsheet that shows a schedule for providing electronic voter lists to the DPW/CC in April and May of the calendar year 2000.

18.4. As another example, Documents 13-27 include several electronic mailings and other correspondences to me from former ADC and SDC technology employees, which included Mr. Langer, Ms. Roller, Ms. Weix, and Mr. White, providing or discussing electronic voter lists or related information.

18.5. As another example, Document 3, titled “The 1999 Coordinated Campaign Plan of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin,” discussed at length the DPW/CC’s plan to share labor and expenses with the legislative campaign committees in an effort to compile a master political electronic voter lists. Of course, the legislative campaign committees have been discovered to be fundamentally no different than the ADC and SDC. Particularly noteworthy is Page 27, titled, “Appendix 2–LDCC Funding,” which presented a plan to pay or otherwise reimburse the legislative campaign committees, not the state, for electronic voter lists provided to the DPW/CC.

18.6. Finally, as another example, I have detailed in my Complaint and subsequent briefs previously provided to the Board, that as the DPW/CC ‘Voter File Manager,’ I was personally involved in the management and development of the master electronic voter list involved, and that electronic voter lists provided to the DPW/CC by the ADC and SDC were appended to this master list and subsequently used for political purposes.

RESTATEMENT OF COMPLAINT

19. I, Donald Fish, allege the above-named entity violated Wisconsin Statutes § 11.12 by not lawfully recording or reporting one or more political campaign contributions, each exceeding a value of $10.00. I further allege the above-named entity violated Wisconsin Statutes § 11.24 by intentionally accepting or receiving one or more political campaign contribution from funds or property not belonging to the contributor. I finally allege the above-named entity violated Wisconsin Statutes § 11.36 by soliciting or receiving from one or more state officers or employees one or more political campaign contributions or services while the officer or employee was or the officers or employees were engaged in official duties.

RESTATEMENT OF REQUEST FOR ACTION

20. I believe the information provided in this Complaint warrants an investigation of the allegations sited, and I ask that appropriate enforcement actions be taken. Additionally, if in the course of investigating this Complaint, evidence of violations of Wisconsin Statutes other than those sited in this Complaint is found, or if evidence of other violators is found, I ask that appropriate enforcement actions be taken on those violations or against those violators as well.

21. According to Mr. Dunst, the Board will provide a copy of this Answer to the respondent, so a copy has not been mailed.

VERIFICATION

22. I, Donald Fish, being first duly sworn, on oath, state that the allegations in this Answer are true based on my personal knowledge except those allegations stated on information and belief, which I believe to be true.

Signed: January 15, 2003

DONALD FISH
(Complainant’s signature)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

) ss

LOS ANGELES COUNTY )

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of January, 2003.

(NOTARY SEAL)

RICHARD HOPPE
(Signature of person authorized to administer oaths)

Click HERE to view the signed verification page (PDF).