In my previous post about Wisconsin’s drunk driving laws, I referred to Wisconsin’s lenient statute with regard to DUI penalties. While the NCSL chart listed all drunk driving offenses in Wisconsin as civil violations, this isn’t entirely accurate. Just to be clear, here is the actual criminal penalty statute for drunk driving in Wisconsin:

346.65 Penalty for violating sections 346.62 to 346.64 (Wisconsin’s Drunk Driving Statute)

346.65
346.65 (2)(am)5. (Fifth Conviction and Beyond)
5. Except as provided in pars. (f) and (g), is guilty of a Class H felony and shall be fined not less than $600 and imprisoned for not less than 6 months if the number of convictions under ss. 940.09 (1) and 940.25 in the person’s lifetime, plus the total number of suspensions, revocations and other convictions counted under s. 343.307 (1), equals 5 or more, except that suspensions, revocations or convictions arising out of the same incident or occurrence shall be counted as one.

346.65(2)(f) (If a Minor Is In the Car)
(f) If there was a minor passenger under 16 years of age in the motor vehicle at the time of the violation that gave rise to the conviction under s. 346.63 (1), the applicable minimum and maximum forfeitures, fines, or imprisonment under par. (am) for the conviction are doubled. An offense under s. 346.63 (1) that subjects a person to a penalty under par. (am) 3., 4., or 5. when there is a minor passenger under 16 years of age in the motor vehicle is a felony and the place of imprisonment shall be determined under s. 973.02

.

Lawmakers in Wisconsin now appear serious about getting tough on drunk driving in Wisconsin, following the death of 39 year-old Jennifer Bukosky, her unborn child and 10-year old daughter at the hands of three-time convicted drunk driver Mark Benson. Even Governor Jim Doyle has proposed making a third drunk driving offense a felony. Other lawmakers have proposed confiscating offenders’ cars after a third offense, as well as sending drunk drivers directly to prison (Benson killed Bukosky and her children during a period before he was supposed to report to jail after his third conviction.)

When crafting a tougher new law, the sensible thing for legislators to do is to see what other states have done to crack down on drunk driving. The National Conference of State Legislatures has provided a chart that details every state’s criminal drunk driving statute. When you look over the list, Wisconsin stands out in how light we are on drunk driving offenders. In the overwhelming majority of states, first non-accident offenses are at least a misdemeanor (although, admittedly, “misdemeanor” means different things in different states.) Exceptions from first-time misdemeanors include New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Louisiana, and New Hampshire - although subsequent offenses usually ratchet up the penalties in those states.

Generally, it is the third, fourth, and fifth offense (usually within a period of a few years) that moves the offense up to a felony in most states. Yet in Wisconsin, the first non-injury offense is a civil conviction. Injury-related DUI offenses constitute either a Class D or Class F felony. Second through fourth offenses are criminal misdemeanors that carry time in the county jail, with a fifth offense moving up to the felony level. (And, as we hear about at least once a year in Wisconsin, if you lose your license, you can always drive your tractor to the liquor store.)

For a full list of Wisconsin’s criminal drunk driving penalties, click here.

(In addition to being a civil conviction, Wisconsin law is even lighter on drivers with blood alcohol content between .08 and .1. For a summary of the .08 law, click here.)

While higher criminal penalties are one way other states go after repeat drunk drivers, they aren’t necessarily the only option.

25 states have opted for mandatory ignition interlock systems for some drunk drivers. Wisconsin is one of 20 states that allows ignition interlock devices to be installed “at judicial discretion,” which is weaker than some states that make the interlock devices mandatory in some or all cases. Several studies show drunk driving recidivism rates drop between 50 and 95 percent when ignition interlock devices are utilized. While some fear that these devices are too easy to circumvent (such as by having someone else blow into the tube for them), newer technology is arriving that makes that more difficult. For instance, some new devices include breath pulse codes, hum-tone recognition, and “blow-and-suck patterns.”

From the NCSL report on ignition interlock systems:

Four states have taken the lead on ignition interlocks by making them mandatory for all convicted drunk drivers, even first-time offenders. New Mexico was the first state, with a law passed in 2005, to require ignition interlocks for all offenders. The state has seen a 28 percent decline in alcohol-related fatalities since the new law went into effect.

Since then, three more states-Arizona, Illinois and Louisiana-have passed similar laws that mandate an ignition interlock for every convicted drunk driver. Oregon and Washington require ignition interlocks for all offenders who want to have their driving privileges reinstated. Colorado, Kansas and New Hampshire make them mandatory for repeat offenders and those convicted of so-called “high BAC” offenses. Sixteen states require them in some circumstances, while 20 states and the District of Columbia allow interlocks at the discretion of the courts.

Five states at some point have employed either special license plates for drunk drivers, or required a sticker be affixed to their license plate. The effectiveness of these programs seems to be mixed, as Oregon let their pilot program lapse without reauthorizing it, and Iowa repealed the law altogether. According to NCSL, five states considered new license plate laws in their 2008 sessions.

27 states have passed laws creating enhanced penalties for driving drunk with children in the car. (In 2003, one Louisiana woman was found passed out in her car with five children, ages 4 to 9, in the car with her.) 16 states have increased the penalties for refusing chemical blood alcohol tests.

A new Wisconsin law could employ any number of these strategies. But it must be done right, and it has to pass the common sense test to which it will undoubtedly be subjected to by the public.

Quite often, well-intentioned legislation goes bad. Such a case exists in Massachusetts, where a well-meaning law meant to broaden the standard for rape has now turned into a national punchline.

Under the new legislation, it would be a felony to have sex with someone under false pretenses. In other words, you could go to jail for lying to someone in order to get them to have sex with you.

The bill states:

Whoever has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse with a person having obtained that person’s consent by the use of fraud, concealment or artifice, and who thereby intentionally deceived such person so that a reasonable person would not have consented but for the deception, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or any term of years. As used in this statute, ‘fraud’ or ‘artifice’ shall not be construed to mean a promise of future consideration.

The bill was meant to correct legitimate instances of deception such as the time a sleepy Massachusetts woman had sex with her boyfriend’s brother, thinking it was actually her boyfriend. In another case, a medical technician pretending to be a doctor conducted a full pelvic exam on a woman after telling her he was licensed to give the exam. (Perhaps the fact that the “doctor” was eating a ham sandwich during the exam might have been a tip-off.)

But think about how broad this language actually is. Lying for sex? Is there really any other way? If women really knew what we were like, there’d be no chance any male would get any action. Every guy has some bogus story about what a good job we have, how we spent time on a Greenpeace boat, how this is our real hair, or some such nonsense. Every man pads the resume a little, hoping to cash in before reality sets in. (Although saying the words “I’m a blogger” might be the most effective birth control known to man.)

Even if there’s not overt lying going on, there are implied lies. Suppose your girlfriend cheats on you with Roger Clemens. And suppose, had you known about the affair, you never would have slept with her again. But she doesn’t tell you about the affair, and you continue to have your monthly sexual encounter. Your girlfriend could actually be guilty of rape, since she concealed information that would have kept you from having sex with her.

The list goes on. Tell a girl you will always love her? Get an orange jumpsuit. Cougar looking to score a younger guy at the bar tonight? Better be honest about your age, or you’ll be making license plates soon, sweetie. Telling a man he’s a great lover to keep the love train going? (Never a problem in my case, incidentally.) Get ready for the big house.  Tell a girl you work with she looks like Pam from “The Office?”  Well, no worries there, since she’ll probably opt not to talk to you ever again.

(As long as we’re handing out sentences, the words “I can’t wait to see the ‘Sex and the City Movie’ out of any guy’s mouth should be punishable by death.)

In 1975, a man named Marty Evans was sued by a woman claiming he lied to get her in the sack, and it went all the way to the New York Supreme Court. In his decision in People v. Evans, Justice Edward Greenfield said:

“So bachelors, and other men on the make, fear not. It is still not illegal to feed a girl a line, to continue the attempt [to obtain sex], not to take no for a final answer, at least not the first time. . . . [A] male [will] make promises that will not be kept, . . . indulge in exaggeration and hyperbole, or to assure any trusting female that, as in the ancient fairy tale, the ugly frog is really the handsome prince.Every man is free under the law, to be a gentleman or a cad.”

Of course, should this bill actually become law, there are fiscal implications, as well. For instance, it might be expensive to turn the State of Montana into a prison big enough to house the entire male population of the United States.  Then again, the entire human race may be eradicated within a decade due to the end of procreation.

(Via the Volokh Conspiracy.)

The Wisconsin State Journal reports Sunday on Marshall Middle School in Janesville, which has taken a portion of their classes and separated the students out by sex.  According to the article, Marshall is one of six public schools in Wisconsin that have begun to sort students by gender.

While same-sex classes aren’t necessarily a new idea (in the old days, “same sex” education meant “girls don’t get to learn to read”), this would indicate that more and more schools are actually getting serious about their students’ education.  While same sex education might not be a panacea (studies on the efficacy of such programs in Wisconsin haven’t been completed), enough anecdotal evidence exists to make the program worth continuing.  From the article:

Jennifer Williams is one of the eighth-grade teachers whose interest in single-gender classes sparked the experiment at Marshall. She ’s pleased by the changes she sees in classes and said bluntly, “I wouldn ‘t go back to coed. ”

William ’s (sic) last-period science class is 28 girls who were also not shy about offering their take on being on the single-gender team. The majority of their comments were positive, especially when it came to academics.

“If you ‘re in a boys and girls class if you want to say an answer, they might make fun of you, ” said Evita Deupree.

“I think it ’s easier to work because you aren ‘t distracted, ” added Chelsie Hardenstine. “I pay more attention than I did last year. “

Naturally, among the boys, opinions are mixed:

“They ‘ll make fun of me for being in here or call it the gay team, ‘ ” said Tyler Kraus. But he liked that class “is more laid back, you can express yourself ” and guessed it ’s “probably helped my grades a little. ” Vaughn Garza agreed that “it is more academic because when you have girls around you tend to show off. ” But Thomas Murphy preferred a co-ed class, saying it hadn ‘t helped him: “I like the other way better.”

Somewhere, noted “girl enthusiast” Thomas Murphy’s parents are cringing.  Note to the Murphys - it’s time to have “the talk” about where babies come from with little Thomas.

Of course, single sex classes are opposed by the ACLU, who view such arrangements as tantamount to “separate but equal” segregation-era classrooms.  From an AP article in 2007:

“Too many schools feel they can carry out a social experiment with students’ education with really the flimsiest of theories,” said Emily Martin, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Women’s Rights Project.

Single-sex schools are an “illusionary silver bullet,” said Lisa Maatz, director of public policy and government relations for the American Association of University Women. They distract from real problems and do not offer proven solutions such as lower class sizes and sufficient funding, she said.

In November of 2006, the U.S. Department of Education made a change to allow such classes to exist:

Previously, single-sex classes had been allowed in only limited cases, such as gym classes and sex education classes. But the new rules allow same-sex education any time schools think it will improve achievement, expand the diversity of courses or meet students’ individual needs.  Enrollment must be voluntary and any children excluded from the class must get a “substantially equal” coed class in the same subject, if not a separate single-sex class.

Furthermore, in 2005, State Representative Scott Jensen introduced a bill allowing single-sex public and charter schools in Wisconsin.  The bill was signed into law by Governor Doyle in April of 2006.

As a result, look for more public schools in Wisconsin to make the move toward single gender classrooms - something private school parents have know benefited their children for decades.

It often seems like the editorial boards at Wisconsin newspapers and their news divisions are inextricably linked.  You see a news article one day, then coincidentally see an editorial the next day arguing for whatever point of view you were supposed to glean from the news article.

But on rare occasions, it seems like editorial and news divisions within the same paper exist on different planets.  Take, for example, the outstanding Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story by Patrick Marley that showed up on Sunday which exposed the abuse of overtime by state correctional officers.  Time and time again, the Journal Sentinel editorial board attempts to convince us how higher taxes are necessary as a means to a better quality of life.  Yet, as Marley explains, the only quality of life being served by taxpayers in this overtime scam is that of the workers themselves.

From the article:

On every day he was scheduled to be off that month, he came in for an overtime shift. On two of those days, he worked double shifts.

But within days of each of those extra shifts, the sergeant called in sick. In all, he claimed four sick days that month. That meant he got hefty paychecks because of overtime, but still had time off.

That month wasn’t unusual for the sergeant, who often volunteered for extra shifts. On 17 occasions in 2006 he called in sick shortly after working on days that he otherwise would have had off. He used almost four weeks of sick leave that year and cleared $117,764 with overtime, making him the state’s fourth-highest-paid officer in 2006.

The scam is easy to explain - you merely use your sick time on days you weren’t scheduled to work, and which qualify for overtime.  That way, you get paid time and a half for hours you never worked.  And taxpayers pick up the tab.

Of course, this heist was explained by this delicious quote:

Officers say there isn’t widespread abuse of the system and note they work stressful jobs in institutions that are understaffed. They blame state officials for adopting laws that put more inmates behind bars without providing the funding necessary to hire enough officers.

Right… it’s the state’s fault for making them earn time and a half for hours they don’t work.  And it’s outstanding that they use understaffing as an excuse for not showing up for work.  Wouldn’t it make more sense for them to be complaining about understaffing if they were actually required to show up to make their time and a half?  Instead, their actions seem to argue that the Department of Corrections has too much money, if they can swindle taxpayers that easily.

This report comes on the heels of a Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance report that shows Wisconsin pays their public school teachers 50% more than the national average in benefits.  It continues to be clear that throughout government in Wisconsin, taxpayers are footing the bill for things that don’t educate a single child or keep criminals behind bars.

For the last couple of days, I’ve been selling out arenas nationwide on the Pro-Corruption World Tour. Last night’s stop included the Humanities building on the UW-Madison campus, where Common Cause held a debate on the merits of campaign finance reform. I debated Senators Mike Ellis and Jon Erpenbach, along with poor Gail Shea, who wasn’t able to get a word in edgewise with all of our hot air taking up the time.

Here’s how it went down:

Ellis and Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton, said they hope to pass legislation that would limit the amount of money interest groups are allowed to spend on political campaigns. The bill would require disclosure by advertising groups on how much they are spending and where the funds come from.

Heck said legislation on campaign finance reform could easily pass, except legislative leaders are “philosophically opposed” to the idea and would not bring the issue to light.

But according to panelist Christian Schneider, a fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, there is strong ground for opposition to Ellis and Erpenbach’s campaign finance reform because of the right to freedom of expression.

“If the First Amendment is meant for anything, it is to protect unpopular political opinions,” Schneider said. “It is condescending to voters to say, ‘You’re not smart enough to see through negative television advertisements.’”

Schneider added negative advertisements can bring harsh truths to light and often increase voter turnout by making voters more interested and invested in campaign issues.

However, Erpenbach and Ellis were quick to defend their campaign finance reform legislation from Schneider’s attacks.

“I do believe firmly in the First Amendment,” Erpenbach said. “I think everybody has the right to free speech — but you can’t go into a crowded theater and yell ‘fire.’”

Erpenbach added huge contributions collected by special interest groups can mute individual opposition voices.

But Ken Mayer, UW political science professor, questioned Erpenbach’s idea of campaign finance reform as a shield to defend the individual opposition voices.

“I’m a little uncomfortable with this idea of using government power to redistribute funds,” Mayer said. “There is no reason to punish those with more money.”

The Wispolitics.com account is here.

And despite my disagreements with virtually everyone in the room on this issue (except Mayer, apparently,) everyone was extremely welcoming and pleasant. In fact, they were so interested in what I had to say, they asked me every question during the crowd Q&A period.

From what I understand, video of the event will be available on WisconsinEye at some point. I’ll post it when it goes up so you can see me spar with Ellis and Erpenbach.

SIDE NOTE: Ken Mayer as written some excellent pieces about campaign finance reform.  See ““Political Realities and Unintended Consequences: Why Campaign Finance Reform is Too Important to be Left to the Lawyers.”

And:“Do Public Funding Programs Enhance Electoral Competition?”

I also have plenty to say as a follow-up to some of the details discussed at the forum.  I’ll be posting those in the near future.

This morning, I got up way too early to be a guest on Joy Cardin’s show on Wisconsin Public Radio. We discussed campaign finance reform and why I am so in favor of corruption.

You can listen to it here.

I’ll be on the Joy Cardin show on Wisconsin Public Radio Monday morning, April 28th at 7 AM (ouch) to talk a little campaign finance reform. I’ll be on for a full hour. If I sound older, it’s because it will be the day after my birthday.

Live streaming is available here.

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court held arguments on the so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment” section of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The provision in question limits how much a candidate can spend on their own campaign, presumably to prevent them from being corrupted by… their own money.

During oral arguments, Justice Scalia ridiculed the notion that laws can somehow “level the playing field” for campaigns. Scalia sarcastically suggested we should next require that the more eloquent candidate talk with pebbles in his mouth, in order to guarantee more egalitarian elections.

If that sounds familiar, it’s because I made a very similar point in a column early this year. To wit:

For instance, we need to eliminate Barack Obama’s good looks from the equation. From now on, Obama should be forced to wear a ridiculous, bushy fake mustache when he gives speeches. We’ll see if women voters are as enthusiastic about his message of hope when he looks like Borat. (Although, admittedly, he might earn my vote if he did so.)

Next, we need to equalize the market for celebrity endorsements. When Chuck Norris endorses Mike Huckabee, every other candidate in the field will be assigned a taxpayer-financed washed-up action star to serve as their campaign spokesman. Jean-Claude Van Damme, we need your cell phone number - looks like John Edwards is cratering!

Under my plan, candidates will be barred from playing instruments while on the campaign trail. Everyone remembers Bill Clinton’s thrust in popularity after he played the saxophone on late night television. Mike Huckabee recently showed up on Jay Leno playing the bass guitar. (Less memorable was Steve Forbes’ performance of Black Sabbath’s “Paranoid” on the triangle.) Whether a candidate can play a few notes on an instrument doesn’t tell me what I need to know about their position on CAFTA.

Finally, we need to get rid of all these troublesome catchwords that seem to be getting people so excited. Obama should be limited to two uses of the word “hope” per speech. Huckabee should only be allowed to refer to God as “the man who lives in the clouds,” and will be limited to using the following joke, written by my four year-old daughter:

Q: “What did the fish say to the seaweed?”

A: “Fish can’t talk!”

All of these important reforms will give real people a chance to run for office. Real ugly, dull, uninformed people.

So since I don’t expect anyone else to toot my horn, I will take this opportunity to do it myself. Or, at least before Wisconsin amends its Constitution to ban tooting your own horn.

People may think the Pennsylvania primary is Tuesday, but little do they know, this contest was decided over the weekend:

Honest to God. What have we become? So political ads aren’t protected speech but this is?