We have already provided clear evidence that Brett Hulsey has been falsely claiming the support of Fred Risser and Tammy Baldwin on this blog.
I had also reported that Brett Hulsey had falsely claimed to have Assemblyman Mark Pocan’s backing as well. In particular, he claimed exactly that at the recent endorsement meeting for the Teaching Assistants’ Association. I recently messaged former TAA Co-Chair Kaja Rebane about Hulsey’s comments at the meeting. She told me:
“I was at the endorsement meeting where Brett said that he was being “supported” in the race by Mark Pocan. I then checked with Mark asking whether he was supporting Brett, and he said he had made no endorsement in the race.”
——
The Hulsey campaign has also recently been touting an endorsement from Clean Wisconsin. He was recently bragging about it on the local news:
“My two top environmental priorities are clean energy and clean lakes, and I want to continue Spencer’s great tradition,” said Hulsey. “I worked with him for 20 years to help pass the phosphorus ban and the Exxon mine ban. I have 100 percent Sierra voting record on the county board, and I’m endorsed by the Sierra Club and Clean Wisconsin.”
The Clean Wisconsin endorsement would seem particularly crucial given the organization’s harsh criticism of the Democrat in the past for his role in coal lobbying for Alliant Energy. Their support seemed even more bizarre considering that Ben Manski not only has a flawless environmental record, but even worked for Clean Wisconsin just a few years ago!
So, it should come as no surprise that this endorsement is made up, too. A little bit of research reveals that Hulsey received the endorsement of the Clean Wisconsin Action Fund, an entirely separate organization. Both of the groups are environmentalist advocacy groups, but this is not mincing words. These are separate organizations with separate governing bodies and documents. Clean Wisconsin is the esteemed group of activists best known for its victories against the mining industry and other polluters. Clean Action Wisconsin Fund appears to be a mostly political advocacy group with a reliable endorsement streak for any Democrat who asks. The latter explains the difference on their website:
Clean Wisconsin and Clean Wisconsin Action Fund are both your environmental voice. But Clean Wisconsin is a 501(c)(3) tax deductible organization. 501(c)(3) charities like Clean Wisconsin are prevented by law from endorsing political candidates or spending more than about 20% of their budget on direct lobbying.
——
Hulsey has been caught lying about his support on several different occasions now. A few of us are now doing doing further inquiries into his other alleged endorsements and claims about his personal and political background. There are several other examples of Hulsey’s blatant falsifications I could write about but won’t do so until I can produce 100% confirming evidence.
Regardless, it is totally unacceptable for Hulsey to lie about his supporters in this way. It’s becoming clear that the Democrat in this race feels that he is entitled to falsify and misrepresent himself through this race. It’s time for the print media to start reporting on his distortions.
I’m also confused as to why he lists the Cap Times (along with several quotes) with all of his other alleged endorsements under the “People who Support Brett” on his blog.
The Cap Times just recently endorsed Manksi!
How much longer before the Cap Times gets on this? Can’t imagine Nichols is gonna let all this slide. And I wouldn’t mind someone lighting a fire under Pocan to at least release a statement clarifying that he hasn’t endorsed.
Great work again, Kyle.
This is foolishness. I’m not a supporter of either candidate in the race, but someone has to call BS where it exists. Just like I’ve called BS on people saying Ben couldn’t be the Rep because he didn’t live in the district, I gotta speak up here.
You’re just missing how legal distinctions matter. Or concealing it. Clean Wisconsin Action Fund is the political arm of Clean Wisconsin. The latter is a 501c3 and cannot endorse candidates; the former is the part of the overall Clean Wisconsin organization that can. I mean, cripes, you even quote some of the text explaining why Clean Wisconsin Action Fund is the political arm of Clean WIsconsin.
http://www.cwactionfund.org/about/staff.html
Look, same program and development director at Clean Wisconsin Action Fund as at Clean Wisconsin. Same organization.
This is silliness.
Peter,
Thanks for your comment. The issue you raise is an interesting one. I am certainly aware of the legal distinction in this matter. There is little you just wrote which I did not already state in different words. The fact remains that these are two different organizations, one, like you said, a “political arm” and the other a highly lauded environmental organization. Brett has lied and stated he has the support of the latter and not the former. These are the facts.
Further, in the interest of full disclosure, I think it’s more than slightly disingenuous of you to portray yourself as a neutral observer in this race. You’re not. You unsuccessfully argued against Ben’s endorsement at the TAA meeting this week. You were (perhaps still are) on the state board of the Democratic Party. You were a public endorser of Dianne Hesselbein. You have criticized Manski supporters in public forums in the past. I doubt you have ever voted for a candidate outside the Democratic Party.
As an aside, I hope the seg fee campaign stuff is going well. Sorry I haven’t been at any of the meetings – been quite busy, as you can imagine!
Peace!
Well said, Peter. Kyle’s attack on you as a person does not invalidate the truth of what you said.
Ed Blume
Hulsey campaign volunteer
From the Daily Cardinal:
‘State Senate Fred Risser, D-Madison, said he supports Hulsey because Risser is “endorsing the Democratic candidates for assembly and he is one of them.”‘
Ed Blume
Hulsey campaign volunteer
Setting aside for the moment the Clean Wisconsin issue…
I don’t think I’ve criticized supporters of either candidate in any public fora in the past, be they supporters of Manski or Hulsey.
I am a neutral observer in this race. I haven’t publicly supporter either candidate, and I don’t intend to do so. I’ve pointed out what I think are false, or at least faulty statements from supporters of both candidates.
And yes, I do sit on the Executive Board of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin by virtue of being the chair of the 2nd Congressional District party organization. But I’ve never gotten into the Green/PD vs. Democrats sniping — as many on both sides will acknowledge. As for voting for a candidate other than a Democrat, you might have me there. But that’s neither here nor there, when the issue above is about presenting factual statements on organizations and who endorses whom and how.
As for the TAA endorsement, it’s probably not a secret that I opposed making an endorsement at all. But I didn’t argue against Ben, just as I would not have argued for endorsing Brett had such a motion been made. My point was about the endorsement of the TAA as a thing in itself, about how we use endorsements to advance the cause of all grad student workers in the political process. At this point, my sentiment has been that the best use of the TAA’s political effort and energy is in winning races where a pro-labor, pro-education majority hangs in the balance in Assembly Districts like the 80th, 47th, 43rd, 42nd, and 51st, and where we have the most anti-public sector worker, anti-union gubernatorial candidate in Wisconsin history staring our state right into a misplaced austerity.
Anyhow, back to the organization question. Should Brett Hulsey have announced his endorsement as being by the “Clean Wisconsin Action Fund” as opposed to “Clean Wisconsin”? Sure. He did:
http://www.brett4us.org/2010/10/clean-wisconsin-action-fund-endorses.html
And you’ll note that the contact person there is Ryan Schryver, staff-person for Clean Wisconsin. Ryan, along with CWAF staffers are listed here on the CW staff page:
http://www.cleanwisconsin.org/about/staff.html
Because c3s cannot endorse, almost all that engage in truly political work in the electoral and legislative arena have “action fund” organizations that are tied to them. It’s one of the most common things for c3s. Look at the contact page for CW:
http://www.cleanwisconsin.org/about/contact.php
It’s the same info as on the CWAF page:
http://www.cwactionfund.org/about/index.html
Review of the GAB finance reports will show similar information.
Finally, and this is perhaps a bit academic at this point, c3s that have a political arm do so for a reason — it greatly helps advance their overall mission, as the democratic political arena is where decisions are made on organizational priorities, e.g. environmental legislation in this case. To separate them in anything other than legal status is misleading.
I think that all can agree that the race in the 77th should come down to what voters want in a Representative and how they want those candidates to approach issues of import.
Peter, thanks again for your reply. I also appreciate you fully disclosing your political background. In my opinion, your affiliations hardly make you unbiased regarding this issue, but I think that’s up for readers to decide.
As a final point on this topic, though, I really do wish that you wouldn’t pretend you don’t have a grudge against Manski. As one person told me, “I don’t know what the source of it is, but anytime I bring up Manski, Peter gets annoyed for some unknown reason.”
Your further commentary on the Clean WI issue only shows that Hulsey has not lied about this endorsement on other occasions. OK – I’ll grant you that. That doesn’t change the fact that he didn’t lie on a publicly televised news report.
Again, I’m aware of the legal distinction between the nature of the two groups. But again, that’s TWO DIFFERENT groups. If you know the people in Clean WI (not the action fund) you would know that they mostly all love Ben and would have endorsed him had they had the legal opportunity to do so.
And don’t forget about this from Stevenson’s article: Mark Redsten, executive director of Clean Wisconsin, elaborates: “Brett focused his comments on the plant’s ability to burn biomass, but our analysis, supported by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission staff, showed that the utility intended to burn all types of coal, and even refinery waste, and only a small amount of biomass,” adding that the proposed plant would generate “significant amounts of nitrous oxide” while spewing “more greenhouse gas emissions than existing coal plants in Wisconsin.”
Clean Wisconsin would NEVER have endorsed Hulsey, even if they had the legal option of doing so.
And finally, yes, the issues are paramount. I do believe, however, that a candidate who insists on REPEATEDLY claiming false support for himself (he’s been caught SEVERAL times now) is not worthy of public office. Fortunately, in this race, the lying candidate isn’t as strong on the issues, anyway.
And Ed – glad to have you back, buddy! Hope you’re doing okay!
Kyle
As you know, I’m supporting Ben Manski, but for the reasons of legal status Peter covers, I think the Clean Wisconsin (Action Fund) thing is a non-issue. The other (non)endorsements are legit issues that reinforce the long-standing questions about Hulsey’s integrity.
I’ll add that I’ve had numerous conversations with Peter where Ben Manski came up and there was no special annoyance, I’ve also had some where there was annoyance and conversations with Peter about Brett Hulsey where there was much annoyance…in fact I’ve had many conversations with Peter about local political figures and usually at some point one or both of us expresses annoyance.
Thank you, Kyle.
Let’s do coffee after November 2.
Ed Blume
Speaking for myself
TJ, thanks for your comment. I’m not particularly interested in running through Peter’s history of opinions regarding Ben Manski and local politics in general. The only reason I though it pertinent to do so in the first place is because I felt he was unfairly portraying himself as an unbiased observer in his first comment. I stand by these criticisms.
Further, while I do agree Hulsey’s other falsifications are more damaging to his political character, it remains a fact that he did NOT receive the endorsement on Clean Wisconsin. It also remains a fact that he said he did. I understand the reason why these two groups exist and the legal necessity for having a “political arm.” Nonetheless, they remain two different groups. I think this issue is especially important, too, because 1) Clean Wisconsin has harshly criticized Hulsey in the past and 2) Ben has had a very close, positive relationship with this group, some of their members even working on Ben’s campaign. It’s ridiculous to think that Clean WI would want to have anything to do with Hulsey.
Assembly Speaker Mike Sheridan, Assistant Majority Leader Donna Seidel, and Caucus Chair Peter Barca today endorsed Supervisor Brett Hulsey for the 77th Assembly District.
“We look forward to working with Brett to represent the progressive values of the 77th District, protect UW and key state jobs,” said Democratic Assembly Speaker Mike Sheridan.
More — http://www.brett4us.org/2010/10/democratic-assembly-leaders-endorse.html
Are you sure? There’s not going to be another “misunderstanding” is there. They seem to happen the closer we get to elections (i.e. when there isn’t much time left to verify it.)
Are you sure that Obama didn’t endorse Hulsey, too?
I’m sure that picture will be on the gotv lit . . . don’t you think?
Those would be the same “leaders” who failed on payday loan regulation, wouldn’t touch the minimum wage or school funding, couldn’t get the clean energy jobs bill through, wouldn’t let the Wisconsin Conservation Corps be restarted…where are they leading again?
Hulsey defeats Manski — http://www.brett4us.org/2010/11/hulsley-earns-victory-in-77th-assembly.html