Answer Two 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.
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
Elections Board Attorney George Dunst sent me a letter dated February 3, 2003 asking several questions regarding my Complaint. This Answer Two provides answers to those questions.
ANSWERS
1 QUESTION: During the period 1999-2001, how did the Coordinated Campaign acquire the data or information used to compile, modify or enhance its voter file; (i.e., purchased from private sources such as political committees or commercial vendors; purchased from state agencies; purchased from county or municipal custodians of record.) Please identify various sources and (if you know) the estimated payment to each.
1.1 ANSWER: During the 1999-2000 election cycle, the respondent, known as the Democratic Party of Wisconsin Coordinated Campaign (hereinafter, ‘DPW/CC’), acquired approximately two-thirds of the state voter data or information from the Assembly Democratic Caucus (hereinafter, ‘ADC’) or Senate Democratic Caucus (hereinafter, ‘SDC’). The remaining approximately one-third of the state voter data or information was purchased from municipalities or counties or donated by third parties.
1.2. To explain further, the ADC and SCD determined their own legislative district targets for the then upcoming 2000 elections and then developed electronic voter lists for these districts. The respondent received this data and was responsible for developing electronic voter lists for the remainder of the state. For areas where the respondent was responsible, the party generally purchased voter data and information directly from municipalities or counties or indirectly as donations from the Wisconsin AFL-CIO, WEAC, or others.
1.3. To better illustrate this division of responsibility, I am providing the Board with three documents in the form of color coded maps of Wisconsin divided by legislative district. The original of all three documents were provided in 1999 or 2000 to the respondent by the ADC or SDC.
1.4. One document (hereinafter, ‘Document 65’) titled “1999-2000 Assembly District Targets” is labeled as “Produced by RAR March 29, 1999.” I believe RAR is for Rachel Roller. In this map ADC targets are filled with yellow, unless a copy is printed in black & white, in which cases they are filled with gray.
1.5. Another document (hereinafter, ‘Document 66’) titled “1999-2000 Senate District Targets” is also labeled as printed “Produced by RAR March 29, 1999.” SDC targets are filled in dark blue, unless a copy is printed in black & white, in which cases they are filled with gray.
1.6. With respect to Documents 65 and 66, generally legislative districts not filled with yellow or dark blue (or light or dark gray) were the responsibility of the respondent.
1.7. Another document (hereinafter, ‘Document 67’) titled “November 1998 Data” indicates the “Ordering Responsibility” for 2000 voter data. Generally, areas not filled with color (or gray) were the responsibility of the respondent.
1.8. This division of responsibility is also illustrated in Document 4 (previously provided to the Board). This document, titled “Senate Data Matrix 2/22/99,” is a copy of a five-page electronic spreadsheet indicating plans for the division of responsibility for electronic voter list development and the progress towards the completion of the plans.
1.9. See the answer to 2.1 below for comments regarding estimated payments to each source of data or information.
2 QUESTION: Describe in as much detail as you know the compensation paid by the Democratic Party to the various sources of the data, information or records described in question (1).
2.1 ANSWER: I have not recently been able to review documents giving precise payments made directly to municipalities or counties, or the value of the donations of data or information from the AFL-CIO, WEAC and others; however, this should be a matter of public record if properly reported by the respondent.
2.2. With respect to payments for data or information from the ADC and SDC, to my knowledge the State of Wisconsin was not compensated; however, a system of payment to the corresponding Democratic legislative campaign committees was developed and approved. One document (hereinafter, Document 68, which was previously provided to the Board as part of Document 3) describes this system in detail. According to this document, payment was authorized to the Democratic legislative campaign committees in exchange for the “Voter File Data” provided, including $5,000 credits on their Coordinated Campaign dues, percentage dividends from product license sales, and copies of electronic voter lists developed by the respondent.
2.3.Calculating the payments made to the Democratic legislative caucuses can be tricky, however, because some payments are not tangible. For example, by being able to provide electronic voter lists to the respondent so inexpensively—because most of the cost was born by the taxpayers—the legislative committees yielded a great deal of power that they leveraged to their advantage. For example, I remember DPW chair Terri Spring in 2000 relating to me that Mr. Gussert and Tanya Bjork used this leverage in an attempt to influence who would direct the Coordinated Campaign in 2000. I also remember in the previous election cycle, the Democratic senate campaign committee influenced who would be included on DPW/CC call lists by filtering the voter data they provided to the DPW/CC.
2.4. Calculating the payments made to the legislative caucuses can also be tricky because of unorthodox accounting sometimes employed by the DPW. For example, in early 1999 I remember John Stocks, a political director for WEAC, told me WEAC paid the outstanding Democratic senate campaign committee obligation to the respondent because Sen. Chvala was refusing to pay what he still owed after the 1998 elections.
3 QUESTION: Respond to the assertion that the Democratic Party and its Coordinated Campaign received data, information and/or records, from various sources, for which it paid no consideration.
3.1 ANSWER: To the best of my knowledge the State of Wisconsin and the ADC and SDC were paid no consideration for the data, information and/or records they provided—the Democratic legislative committees were paid that consideration, if any was actually paid–and WEAC provided the respondent with some old electronic voter lists in 1999 or 2000 for which no consideration was paid.
4 QUESTION: Respond to the assertion that the Democratic Party and its Coordinated Campaign received data, information and/or records, from various sources, for which it paid inadequate consideration.
4.1 ANSWER: I believe the limited monetary consideration paid for the data, information and/or records acquired from the ADC or SDC, if any was paid at all, was far below the actual value. Much of this voter information had to be entered by had by state employees and/or processed by state technical staff. If the value of the data, information and/or records provided to the respondent by the ADC and SDC was calculated in terms of their cost to provide, the amount would easily be over $100,000 and perhaps over $200,000 depending on the method used to determine value. In any event, the monetary consideration paid to the Democratic legislative campaign committees, if any, clearly dwarfs what the taxpayers paid to provide the data, information and/or records involved.
5 QUESTION: Respond to the assertion that the Democratic Party and its Coordinated Campaign received, from legislative staff or from legislative caucus staff, data, information and/or records for which it paid no consideration or inadequate consideration.
5.1 ANSWER: See 3.1 and 4.1 above.
6 QUESTION: Do you know whether it was the policy of the Wisconsin State Senate not to charge for data, information or records provided to a requester? What evidence do you have of that policy? Do you know of any senate offices that did require payment for data, information or records provided by that office during the subject time period. What is the basis for that knowledge?
6.1 ANSWER: I have not recently reviewed the public information policies and practices involved; however, I believe they are not relevant in this situation.
6.2. The respondent claims the data, information or records received from the ADC and SDC were simply public information, however, one of the most basic and fundamental logical requirements of public information is that it is available to all the public, otherwise it does not fit the definition or legal requirements of public information—until it is public information everyone, it is not public information anyone. Since the data, information or records received by the respondent did not meet this basic logical requirement, what they received cannot legitimately be considered or termed public information. Perhaps it should have been public information and perhaps it was supposed to be public information, but in reality it was not—which significantly was do to the plans and intentions of the respondent, ADC, and SDC.
6.3. It is significant that just because certain information is public information, the documents containing that information may not necessarily be individually public information because they are not ready, because they are in the process of being updated or corrected, or because of many other reasons. For example a specific map may not be public information because an electronic map printer is broken. While map information in general may be public information, this particular map is temporarily not because of technical problems. A parallel can be drawn can be with what the respondent received. Even if voter information in general is considered public information, which is not necessarily being stipulated here, the individual documents containing that information were not. Not because of customary reasons such as availability, but in this case because the respondent, ADC, and SDC were hiding it from the public for political gain. The information received by the respondent was clearly not part of the public domain.
6.4. It is also significant that the State of Wisconsin exempts certain kinds of electronic information from its public information requirements, including some of the data, information or records involved in my Complaint.
6.5. It is also significant that the data, information or records involved were developed for political purposes and would not have existed except for an extraordinary relationship between the respondent and the ADC and SDC. This relationship resulted in a virtual pipeline of data expressly directed to the respondent and no one else.
6.6. It is also significant that much of the data, information or records involved were the product of a campaign effort run out of the ADC, SDC, and Democratic legislative offices. This effort of course has been exposed in the media as well as through this Board, the State Ethics Board and the Dane and Milwaukee County District Attorney offices. I have discussed this effort, and the involvement of the respondent, in great detail in previous filings and deposition, and summarize some aspects again in the answer to 8 below.
6.7. Perhaps most telling of all is the fact that the respondent licensed part of the data, information or records received from the ADC or SDC to third parties for significant monetary gains. I remember Mr. Stocks telling me WEAC twice licensed state-wide copies for about $100,000 each, and many others have purchased licenses as well, as is recognized in Document 3 and in the respondent’s reporting to this Board. I am providing the Board with a copy of a check involved in one of these transaction (hereinafter, ‘Document 69’) in this case involving the election campaign of Atty. Gen. Doyle. If the data, information or records involved in my Complaint were truly public information available, apparently for free, from the ADC or SDC, the question is how would the respondent have a market for licensing the same information to others? The respondent’s assertions are absurd and beyond the perimeters of logic.
6.8. As independent evidence of my assertions, I remind the Board that there is testimony under oath that in 2000 Brian Blanchard’s election campaign for Dane County District Attorney was denied the same electronic voter lists the respondent claims were available to anyone as public information. Specifically, 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, Mr. Gussert and Branda Weix, who were SDC employees during the time covered by my complaint, “refused the Blanchard campaign request for lists.”
7 QUESTION: Do you know whether it was the policy of the Wisconsin State Assembly not to charge for data, information or records provided to a requester? What evidence do you have of that policy? Do you know of any assembly offices that did require payment for data, information or records provided by that office during the subject time period. What is the basis for that knowledge?
7.1 ANSWER: See answer to 6 above.
8 QUESTION: Respond to the assertion that the Democratic Party and its Coordinated Campaign conspired with legislative staff and legislative caucus to generate data, information and/or records which were outside the authority of those staff to generate and for which the Democratic Party and its Coordinated Campaign paid no consideration or inadequate consideration.
8.1 ANSWER: As independent evidence of the illegitimacy of the data, information and/or records involved, I remind the Board that there is testimony under oath relating to the Blanchard hearing cited in 6.3 above about which 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.”
8.2. I also remind the Board of some of the many assertions I have made in previous filings and deposition relating to this matter. I summarize these assertions below in no particular order. It should be noted that the assertions provided below constitute a summary and are not a complete list. These assertions include:
8.3. First, Document 9 (previously provided to the Board) is a copy of a one-page electronic mail communication, dated June 1, 2000, transmitted from Coordinated Campaign Director Angelique Pirozzi to state or federal employees that states, “If you have a government email address, please set up a hotmail or yahoo account soon; they are free.” Additionally, I witnessed discussions led by Ms. Pirozzi concerning state or federal employees registering for and using private electronic mail accounts and private cell telephone accounts so, it was said, during the course of the upcoming election campaign it would not appear that state or federal electronic mail or telephone systems were used for electioneering purposes.
8.4. Second, a statement was made to me by Ms. Pirozzi saying Ms. Bjork and Mr. Gussert had worked it out to show that voter list data entry was done by caucus employees on volunteer time and not on state time, which Ms. Pirozzi acknowledged was not true. This was followed a few days later with statements by Ms. Pirozzi and various other individuals saying, for the first time to me, that the electronic voter lists involved were legal because they were public information. These were obvious attempts to rewrite and ‘spin’ history in the wake of the problem I handed the respondent when I refused to go along with their illegal and unethical behavior. Soon after this I was fired by the respondent.
8.5. Third, I witnessed many discussions at Coordinated Campaign meetings where plans were discussed to use state resources and facilities in the development of the DPW/CC master electronic voter list.
8.6. Fourth, Document 3 (previously provided to the Board), titled “The 1999 Coordinated Campaign Plan of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin” (hereinafter ‘Document 3’), is a copy of a 31-page DPW/CC plan, labeled as approved on April 22, 1999, that states, in referring to the respondent’s electronic voter list, “Updating voter history on the file will be done by three parties: 1. the SDCC, 2. the ADCC, 3. the Democratic Party of Wisconsin”; and that the legislative campaign committees “will work with the CC and members on a timeline of voter history completion and enhancement programs.”
8.7. Fifth, I worked extensively with ADC or SDC employees, including Ms. Bjork, Mr. Langer, Mr. White, Mr. Gussert, Ms. Roller, and Ms. Weix, to negotiate standards for the electronic voter lists eventually provided to the respondent by the ADC or SDC.
8.8. Sixth, many of the electronic voter lists provided to the respondent by the ADC and SDC were for legislative districts without Democratic Party incumbents, and therefore could not have originated for legitimate constituent services, as asserted by the respondent.
8.9. Seventh, many of the electronic voter lists provided to the respondent by the ADC and SDC contained a field that directly related and linked the Democratic caucus data, information and/or records with the DPW/CC master electronic voter list. This was clearly not for legitimate constituent services and furthermore illustrates an obviously political relationship between the ADC, SDC, and respondent.
8.10. Eighth, many of the electronic voter lists provided to the respondent by the ADC and SDC included fields containing supporter, lawn sign, volunteer, and donor identifications which were clearly not for legitimate constituent services.
8.11. Ninth, light was even made of this conduct. At a voter file meeting on June 7, 2000, also attended by ADC and SDC employees, including Ms. Bjork, Mr. Langer, Mr. White, Mr. Gussert, Ms. Roller, and Ms. Weix, another CC official, Ms. Pirozzi, JoAnna Richard (by conference call) for Atty. Gen. Doyle, Teresa Vilmain for Gore 2000, and a representative for Sen. Kohl I do not know the name of. At this meeting there was direct and free discussion about this conduct and that it was not legal. Much of this discussion was prompted by Ms. Vilmain, who was not already aware of this conduct and seemed surprised and genuinely concerned. Several times Ms. Vilmain referred to this conduct with sarcastic remarks about how the taxpayers were paying for campaign efforts. I specifically remember Ms. Vilmain’s remark at the end of the meeting when she said, in a humorous tone, “Will state taxpayers be getting a credit next year for supplying the data.”
8.12. Tenth, light was also made at a lunch meeting I had with Ms. Spring on June 30, 2000. While we were discussing this conduct, Ms. Spring commenting that these activities were “trivial” and likened them to “driving a few miles over the speed limit.”
8.13. Eleventh, Ms. Bjork acknowledged to me in early 1999 that the practice of the ADC and SDC providing the electronic voter lists involved to the respondent was “not legal.”
8.14. And finally, but not last or necessarily least, I witnessed a meeting attended by Sen. Feingold (on the telephone), Sen. Kohl, then Rep-elect Baldwin, Rep. Barrett, Rep. Kind, Rep. Kleczka, Rep. Obey (who led the meeting), Ms. Richard for the Democratic senate campaign committee, Paul Tewes and Ms. Spring for the DPW/CC, two representatives for Atty. Gen. Doyle, a Democratic Assembly campaign committee representative, representatives of labor, and others, that included discussion of using ADC and SDC office staff to data enter voter information for the 2000 DPW/CC master electronic voter list.
8.15. For all these reasons, the answer to 6 and 3.1 an 4.1 above, and for others reasons deriving from personal knowledge or documents I have not listed here, I do indeed believe the respondent conspired with Democratic legislative staff and the ADC and SDC to generate data, information and/or records which were outside the authority of those staff to generate and for which the Democratic Party and its Coordinated Campaign paid no consideration or inadequate consideration.
9 QUESTION: Estimate, as best you can, the total volume of data, information or records that were furnished to the Coordinated Campaign by legislative staff or by legislative caucus staff in compiling the 2000 Voter File. Demonstrate or describe the method that you used to calculate the estimated total volume of data, information or records that were furnished to the Coordinated Campaign by legislative staff or by legislative caucus staff.
9.1 ANSWER: As previously reported to the Board, for the 1999-2000 election cycle, the respondent acquired data and information for at least the following 15 Assembly Districts: 1, 26, 27, 29, 35, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 67, 68, 69, 71, 74; the following 17 State Senate Districts: 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 21, 22 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32; and the City of Milwaukee. Considering the population of this grouping, and personal knowledge I have of the process, I would calculate an estimated one million records were involved. Of course many additional records were provided in previous election cycles to the respondent by the ADC and SDC, and most of these records were made part of the 2000 file as well, including perhaps an additional one million records.
10 QUESTION: Do you have any personal knowledge of the disbursements or payments made by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, or by its Coordinated Campaign to pay for the data, information or records it received from all sources? What is the basis for that knowledge and how did you acquire that knowledge?
10.1 ANSWER: Many of the checks paid to municipalities and counties for voter information were requested and mailed by me, however, I have not recently been able to review documents providing precise information on these payments. Nevertheless, this should be a matter of public record if properly reported by the DPW.
10.2. I explained the method of payment to the Democratic legislative campaign committees in 2.2 above; however, I was not the bookkeeper and I do not have direct knowledge of any distribution or credits actually rendered. Nevertheless, much of this too should be a matter of public record if properly reported by the DPW.
11 QUESTION: Do you have any personal knowledge of the disbursements or payments made by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, or by its Coordinated Campaign to pay for the data, information or records it received from legislative staff or by legislative caucus staff? What is the basis for that knowledge and how did you acquire that knowledge?
11.1 ANSWER: See answer to 10 above.
12 QUESTION: Itemize (or estimate) disbursements made by the Coordinated Campaign to acquire the data, information or records for the 2000 Voter File. Demonstrate or describe the method that you used to arrive at the estimate.
12.1 ANSWER: I have not recently been able to review all the documents necessary to give you a precise answer, but such payment should be a matter of public record if properly reported by the DPW. Based on memory and personal knowledge of how the process worked, I would roughly estimate about $7,000 was paid to municipalities and counties, about $3,000 was paid by the AFL-CIO, WEAC and others and donated to the respondent, and perhaps about $20,000 was paid in credits and cash disbursements to the Democratic legislative campaign committees.
13 QUESTION: Estimate, as best you can, the approximate value to the Coordinated Campaign of the data, information or records that were furnished to the Coordinated Campaign by legislative staff or by legislative caucus staff in compiling the 2000 Voter File. Demonstrate or describe the method that you used to arrive at the estimate.
13.1 ANSWER: In 4.1 above, I estimated the amount to be easily over $100,000 and perhaps over $200,000 depending on the method used to determine value. I made this calculation based on one million records times from 10 to 20 cents per record. The estimate of one million records is explained in 9.1 above, and the estimated cost per record is based on professional and personal knowledge about the process and the various expenses associated with it.
13.2. Information on the value can be gained from one document (hereinafter, ‘Document 70’) which is a letter dated March 25, 1999 and signed by DPW Executive Director Tewes explaining that the party considered the fair market value of records they licensed to third parties to be $.0336 per name. It is very significant that this was the cost for licensing use of the records and not outright sale of ownership, which is what the respondent received from the ADC and SDC. The value of ownership would be significantly higher.
14 QUESTION: Itemize (or estimate) disbursements made by the Coordinated Campaign to acquire the data, information or records provided to it by legislative staff or by legislative caucus staff for purposes of the 2000 Voter File.
14.1 ANSWER: See the answer to 2 and 12.1 above.
RESTATEMENT OF COMPLAINT
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
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.
According to Mr. Dunst, the Board will provide a copy of this Answer to the respondent, so a copy has not been mailed.
VERIFICATION
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: March 24, 2003
DONALD E. FISH
(Complainant’s signature)
- STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
- ) ss
- LOS ANGELES COUNTY )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24th day of March, 2003.
(NOTARY SEAL)
DOREEN J. GREEN
(Signature of person authorized to administer oaths)
Click HERE to view the signed verification page (PDF).