The Sconi

Bombarded with assertions from big-spending liberals, many Wisconsin independents and conservatives were persuaded this week to vote against two constitutional amendments. These amendments would have granted legislators shared responsibility with the governor over significant federal spending.

In a primary with more than 1.2 million voters, 57% voted “no” on both amendments — a decisive result in a state typically open to constitutional change. In Milwaukee County, over 70% of voters rejected the amendments, while in Dane County, the figure exceeded 80%.

It wasn't only liberals and progressives who voted “no.” A majority of voters in 21 counties that supported Republican Tim Michels in the last gubernatorial election also opposed the amendments.

Opponents of the amendments claimed victims of tornadoes would not be able to quickly get FEMA money and suggested that the amendments would eliminate checks and balances. “No” supporters spent millions on their campaign, which proved effective. Proponents of a “yes” vote, including the Badger Institute, lacked comparable financial resources.

“What we saw as basic good governance, a step toward accountability and basic democratic principles, was turned into a partisan issue by the left,” stated Mike Nichols, President of the Badger Institute.

Some believe it will take years to get similar amendments back on another ballot. The governor will continue to spend large amounts of federal money without legislative approval if such funds remain available.

The lack of oversight resulting from the “no” vote highlights concerns about unchecked federal spending. The U.S. currently holds $35 trillion in federal debt, partly due to how funds flow to states.

A Badger Institute analysis in 2018 found there are more than 10,000 federal employees disguised as state employees in Wisconsin alone. "The takeover of state government by politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., has moved so relentlessly forward," Nichols wrote previously.

State officials often favor federal funds due to perceived lack of cost. However, this practice now codified by voters allows governors unchecked spending power over these funds.

Government functions best when it is close to its citizens through representative oversight on spending decisions. Unfortunately for some critics like Nichols, recent votes may have exacerbated existing issues around fiscal transparency and accountability.

___