Action 10-1-10Letter2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Who Are My Wisconsin Legislators?
Who are my Wisconsin Legislators? To find … • Legislators by entering a street address • Legislators by municipality where you vote • Detailed legislative district maps Click on this link: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/waml/waml.aspx • Legislators by Technical College District document follows beginning on the next page … More information: http://www.buildingthenextgeneration.org Further assistance: Paul Gabriel, 608 266-9430 [email protected] 1 2011 - 2013 State Legislators by Technical College District Wisconsin Technical College District Boards Association August, 2011 Members in bold text were first elected this session Numbers at left are Senate and Assembly Districts “Additional” members overlap only slightly into the college district Blackhawk Technical College Senators 15 Tim Cullen, D-Janesville 27 Jon Erpenbach, D-Waunakee Representatives 43 Evan Wynn, R-Whitewater 44 Joe Knilans, R-Janesville 45 Amy Loudenbeck, R-Clinton 80 Janis Ringhand, D-Evansville Chippewa Valley Technical College Senators 10 Sheila Harsdorf, R-River Falls 23 Terry Moulton, R-Chippewa Falls 31 Kathleen Vinehout, D-Alma Representatives 29 John Murtha, R-Baldwin 30 Dean Knudson, R-Hudson 67 Tom Larson, R-Colfax 68 Kathy Bernier, R-Chippewa Falls 69 Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford 91 Chris Danou, D-Trempealeau 93 Warren Petryk, R-Eleva Additional Representatives 92 Mark Radcliffe, D-Black River Falls 2 Fox Valley Technical College Senators 1 Frank Lasee, R-DePere 2 Robert Cowles, R-Green Bay 14 Luther Olsen, R-Ripon 18 Jessica King, D-Oshkosh 19 Michael -
Appendix File Anes 1988‐1992 Merged Senate File
Version 03 Codebook ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ CODEBOOK APPENDIX FILE ANES 1988‐1992 MERGED SENATE FILE USER NOTE: Much of his file has been converted to electronic format via OCR scanning. As a result, the user is advised that some errors in character recognition may have resulted within the text. MASTER CODES: The following master codes follow in this order: PARTY‐CANDIDATE MASTER CODE CAMPAIGN ISSUES MASTER CODES CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP CODE ELECTIVE OFFICE CODE RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE MASTER CODE SENATOR NAMES CODES CAMPAIGN MANAGERS AND POLLSTERS CAMPAIGN CONTENT CODES HOUSE CANDIDATES CANDIDATE CODES >> VII. MASTER CODES ‐ Survey Variables >> VII.A. Party/Candidate ('Likes/Dislikes') ? PARTY‐CANDIDATE MASTER CODE PARTY ONLY ‐‐ PEOPLE WITHIN PARTY 0001 Johnson 0002 Kennedy, John; JFK 0003 Kennedy, Robert; RFK 0004 Kennedy, Edward; "Ted" 0005 Kennedy, NA which 0006 Truman 0007 Roosevelt; "FDR" 0008 McGovern 0009 Carter 0010 Mondale 0011 McCarthy, Eugene 0012 Humphrey 0013 Muskie 0014 Dukakis, Michael 0015 Wallace 0016 Jackson, Jesse 0017 Clinton, Bill 0031 Eisenhower; Ike 0032 Nixon 0034 Rockefeller 0035 Reagan 0036 Ford 0037 Bush 0038 Connally 0039 Kissinger 0040 McCarthy, Joseph 0041 Buchanan, Pat 0051 Other national party figures (Senators, Congressman, etc.) 0052 Local party figures (city, state, etc.) 0053 Good/Young/Experienced leaders; like whole ticket 0054 Bad/Old/Inexperienced leaders; dislike whole ticket 0055 Reference to vice‐presidential candidate ? Make 0097 Other people within party reasons Card PARTY ONLY ‐‐ PARTY CHARACTERISTICS 0101 Traditional Democratic voter: always been a Democrat; just a Democrat; never been a Republican; just couldn't vote Republican 0102 Traditional Republican voter: always been a Republican; just a Republican; never been a Democrat; just couldn't vote Democratic 0111 Positive, personal, affective terms applied to party‐‐good/nice people; patriotic; etc. -
A Rocky Road Lies Ahead for the Advocates of the Civil Rights Of
VOLUME.SEVEN, NO. 23 .--No►ember 11, 1994—November 23, 1994—Issue 167 FREE Give the People Light and they will find their own way. The Wisconsin Light Wisconsin A Rocky Road Lies Ahead for the Advocates Election Results Are a Mirror of of the Civil Rights of Lesbians and Gay Men National Trends AIDS Funding, Employment Non-Discrimination Bill, Civil Rights Acts in Jeopardy By Bill Meunier By Bill Meunier To sOtale eXtellt, the national election results were mirrored in• It was a watershed election. It was a land Wisconsin, The Suez Assembly he- mark election, For advocates of Guy ane came RepUblielli for the first time in Lesbian rights, it was a disaster. Across the a generation and an incumbent country voters stet RcpuNicarri to Congress in Detnocratic Congressman 'wee numbers that hadn't been seen since the knocked off by a conservative 1950's . • Christian Coalition Reipublican. While some found reason to cheer Senator Governor Tommy Thompson Chuck Robb's victory over the homophobic won over Democrat Chuck Chvala Oliver North, others familiar with the political by a wide margin. Thompson, who scene were stunned by the toss of xi many heavily. outspent Chvala, won staunch Gay civil rights supporters. Not only unprecetleined third term as Cover- did many of those who had supported Gay nnr. Chvala, who was expect to .civil rights lore, they lost to Radical Right lose, was a strong supporter of Gay Wing Christian Fundsnientalists backed can- and Lesbian rights as a legislater. didates. Thonipson„ while a member of the. Senator !David McCurdy, an Oklahoma Slam Legislature, consisiently voted Democrat and a Gay civil rights is a good against Gay and Lesbian interests. -
Rebuilding the Marquette Interchange Is Not Among Them
Wisconsin Policy Research Institute R e p o r t December 2002 Volume 15, Number 9 Rebuilding the M a rq u e t t e I n t e rchange via a P u b l i c - P r i v a t e P a rt n e r s h i p REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT: Over the next several years, there may be no more impor- WISCONSIN POLICY tant issue in Wisconsin than the rebuilding of the Marquette RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. Interchange. We asked several people with expertise to develop a study that identifies financing for the Marquette that would P.O. Box 487 • Thiensville, WI 53092 not use public funding but would introduce the concept of pri- (262) 241-0514 • Fax: (262) 241-0774 vate money. The lead author is Robert Poole, Jr., the founder of E-mail: [email protected] • Internet: www.wpri.org the Reason Foundation and its director of transportation studies. His 1988 study on private toll roads in California changed national thinking in several states on the use of private and pub- REBUILDING THE lic toll roads. He has advised numerous states as well as the last four White House administrations on various transportation pol- MARQUETTE INTERCHANGE icy issues. Kevin Soucie is a Wisconsin-based consultant on transportation. He is a former Democratic member of the VIA A PUBLIC-PRIVATE Assembly and has chaired its transportation committee. Dr. Thomas McDaniel and Dr. Daryl Fleming have many years of PARTNERSHIP combined experience in transportation issues and have provid- ed important research for this project. -
Reuters/Ipsos/UVA Center for Politics State Poll: Wisconsin Prepared by Ipsos Public Affairs
Reuters/Ipsos/UVA Center for Politics State Poll: Wisconsin Prepared by Ipsos Public Affairs Reuters/Ipsos/UVA Center for Politics State Poll: Wisconsin Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in conjunction with the University of Virginia Center for Politics 10.24.2018 These are findings from an Ipsos poll conducted October 12-18, 2018 on behalf of Thomson Reuters and the University of Virginia Center for Politics. For the survey, a sample of roughly 2,001 adults age 18+ from Wisconsin were interviewed online in English. The sample includes 1,193 likely voters, 568 likely voter Democrats, 472 likely voter Republicans and 91 likely voter Independents. 1. In your opinion, what is the most important problem facing the US today? (Select from below or write in). All Likely Likely Voters: Likely Voters: Likely Voters: All Adults Voters Democrat Republican Independent Economy generally 11% 10% 9% 10% 8% Unemployment / lack of jobs 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% War / foreign conflicts 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% Immigration 9% 12% 3% 24% 4% Terrorism / terrorist attacks 6% 7% 5% 10% 4% Healthcare 28% 29% 37% 22% 26% Energy issues 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Morality 9% 10% 7% 11% 15% Education 4% 4% 6% 2% 4% Crime 7% 6% 5% 8% 6% Environment 6% 5% 10% 1% 3% Other – 10% 11% 13% 6% 22% Don't know 4% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2. In November 2018, the next midterm congressional election will be held. Using a 1-to-10 scale, where 10 means you are completely certain you will vote and 1 means you are completely certain you will NOT vote, how likely are you to vote in the upcoming midterm congressional election? (Select one) Likely Voters: Likely Voters: Likely Voters: All Adults All Likely Voters Democrat Republican Independent 1 12% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 5 8% 1% 1% 0% 2% 6 3% 1% 0% 1% 2% 7 4% 2% 1% 2% 3% 8 6% 3% 2% 4% 3% 9 7% 8% 6% 9% 12% 10 54% 83% 87% 82% 75% Reuters/Ipsos/UVA Center for Politics State Poll: Wisconsin Prepared by Ipsos Public Affairs 3. -
Shame on You: Campaign Finance Reform Through Social Norms
Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 55 Issue 4 Article 4 5-2002 Shame on You: Campaign Finance Reform Through Social Norms Todd R. Overman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Banking and Finance Law Commons Recommended Citation Todd R. Overman, Shame on You: Campaign Finance Reform Through Social Norms, 55 Vanderbilt Law Review 1243 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol55/iss4/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Shame on You: Campaign Finance Reform Through Social Norms INTRODUCTION ................................... 1244 II. Legal Theory Background ...................................................... 1247 A. Public Choice Theory and Interest Group Competition............................. 1247 B. The Promise of Free Bargaining................................ 1251 C. Production of Social Norms ....................................... 1255 III. PUBLIC CHOICE APPLICATION TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE R EFO RM ................................................................................... 1259 A. History of Campaign Finance Regulation................. 1259 1. The FECA of 1971 and 1974 .......................... 1260 2. B uckley v. Valeo .............................................. 1262 B. Latest Attempt at Reform: The BipartisanCampaign -
Feingold Dems' Best Shot for Kohl Senate Seat
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 24, 2011 INTERVIEWS: Tom Jensen 919-744-6312 IF YOU HAVE BASIC METHODOLOGICAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE E-MAIL [email protected], OR CONSULT THE FINAL PARAGRAPH OF THE PRESS RELEASE Feingold Dems’ best shot for Kohl Senate seat Raleigh, N.C. – Despite being upset by first-time candidate Ron Johnson last fall, Russ Feingold is poised for a strong comeback to electoral politics in Wisconsin’s other Senate seat, if he chooses to run. With Herb Kohl’s recent retirement announcement, a number of candidates on both sides are considering bids in what could be one of the hottest Senate races in the country, and a tougher one for Democrats to hold than had Kohl run for another term. But while Democrats have a slight upper hand in the early going, no matter their candidate, their strongest choice would be Feingold, particularly against the most well-known Republican, former Governor Tommy Thompson. In February, Kohl was leading any of the Republicans PPP tested against him by seven to 15 points, and in December, led Thompson by nine. Now Thompson tops Rep. Tammy Baldwin by one and former Rep. Steve Kagen by three, and ties Rep. Ron Kind. But Feingold puts him away by ten points, 52-42. Feingold is better liked than Thompson by independents and has better numbers within his own party, so he wins with independents, 49-40, and earns 91% of Democrats’ votes and loses only 5% to Thompson, while taking 8% of Republicans and keeping Thompson at 87%. Feingold and Thompson are the heavy-hitters at the outset of this formative open-seat race, both known by well over 80% of voters, better than the 57% who have an opinion of Attorney General J.B. -
US 41 Interstate Conversion Study, Executive Summary
Executive Summary Description of the Proposed Action The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is studying alternatives to convert United States Highway 41 (US 41) from a non-Interstate freeway on the National Highway System (NHS) to an Interstate Highway between the Zoo Interchange on Interstate 94 (I-94/I-894) in Milwaukee and the US 41/I-43 interchange in Green Bay. The overall study corridor extends through Kenosha, Racine, Milwaukee, Waukesha, Washington, Dodge, Fond du Lac, Winnebago, Outagamie, and Brown counties. See project location map on previous page. As a result, WisDOT and FHWA have limited the proposed action in this environmental document to the following: x Consider the broad costs and benefits of Interstate conversion. x Evaluate the impacts of signing US 41 between Milwaukee and Green Bay with an Interstate route number and changing the designation of other segments of the study corridor. x Determine the construction impacts of installing Interstate signing and other minor improvements along the study corridor. Based on the results of the evaluation, WisDOT will determine whether to convert US 41 to an Interstate Highway. Purpose of and Need for the Project The purpose of the proposed action is to enhance and accelerate economic development by converting the US 41 corridor to an Interstate Highway and signing it thus. The need for the proposed action is based in part on economics and in part on meeting the intent of the previous federal surface transportation law which identified the US 41 corridor a high priority corridor on the NHS and designated it a future Interstate route. -
SUPRC/Milwaukee Journal Sentinel August 2018
SUPRC/Milwaukee Journal Sentinel August 2018 Region: (N=500) n % Northeast --------------------------------------------------------- 114 22.80 North ----------------------------------------------------------------- 42 8.40 West ------------------------------------------------------------------ 63 12.60 South --------------------------------------------------------------- 104 20.80 Southeast --------------------------------------------------------- 177 35.40 Hello, my name is __________, and I am conducting a survey for Suffolk University. I would like to get your opinions on some political questions. Would you be willing to spend seven minutes answering some questions? Thank You. Are you currently registered to vote? {IF YES, PROCEED. IF NO/ UNDECIDED, TERMINATE} 1. Gender (N=500) n % Male ---------------------------------------------------------------- 244 48.80 Female ------------------------------------------------------------ 256 51.20 2. How likely are you to vote in the upcoming elections for Governor and U.S. Senate – will you almost certainly vote, will you probably vote, are the chances 50-50, will you probably not vote, or will you definitely not vote in the general? (N=500) n % Almost certain---------------------------------------------------- 477 95.40 Probably vote ------------------------------------------------------ 23 4.60 3. Toward which political party do you lean toward at this time? (N=500) n % Democrat --------------------------------------------------------- 186 37.20 Republican ------------------------------------------------------- -
Common Core Standards Are Hard to Top, Despite the Complaints
Education Reform Still a good conservative idea By Michael J. Petrilli ack in 2010, when Wisconsin chose to adopt the Common Core state standards, it wasn’t a difficult Bdecision. While the Badger State has long led the na- tion on school choice, it has one of the worst records in the country on standards-based reform. Its reading and math standards were among the lowest in the country, and its tests among the easiest to pass — possibly explaining why Common Core Wisconsin’s student performance mostly flat-lined over the 2000s while other states made significant gains. Common Core gave Wisconsin a chance to start fresh, standards are aim higher and catch up to leading states like Massachu- setts. The standards haven’t changed over the past five years, hard to top, but the political calculus certainly has. Opposition to the Common Core has become a cause célèbre of the Tea Party — both its organic grass roots and its more opportunistic despite the fundraising factions. The main concern was the unfortunate role of the federal government in encouraging — some would say coercing — the states to adopt the Common complaints Core via the $4 billion Race to the Top initiative. So it’s not surprising that politicians — especially Re- publican governors — find themselves trying to triangulate between their anti-Common Core base and the business wing of the GOP, which sees these standards as important building blocks for stronger public schools and a more competitive economy. Enter Gov. (and presumptive presidential candidate) Scott Walker. Walker has a history of successful triangula- tion, particularly around Obamacare. -
Automation in Highway Construction Part I: Implementation Challenges at State Transportation Departments and Success Stories
Automation in Highway Construction Part I: Implementation Challenges at State Transportation Departments and Success Stories PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-HRT-16-030 OCTOBER 2018 Research, Development, and Technology Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101-2296 FOREWORD The Federal Highway Administration conducted research to document gaps for implementing automation in highway construction and to develop guidance for State transportation departments to assist them in implementing and using automation to improve project delivery. There are two volumes of the final report. Part I (this volume) presents a description of the key automation technology areas and the associated benefits, challenges, and solutions. Part II presents an overview of enabling technologies and policies for automation in highway construction as well as implementation strategies, design procedures, and practical guidelines to properly generate three-dimensional (3D) models for uses in construction and other phases of highway project delivery. This volume provides State transportation departments a focus on five key technology areas, taking into consideration that, to be able to fully implement automation during the construction phase of a highway project, technologies are implemented prior to construction during the planning, surveying, and design phases. The key technology areas are remote sensing, underground utilities locating technologies, 3D design, machine control and automation, and field technology and inspection. This volume documents success stories and best practices for automation in highway construction; best uses for individual technologies, including the types of costs and resources required by the industry and agencies for implementing these technologies; and their associated return on investment. Finally, it documents challenges of automation technology in the areas of surveying, utilities, real-time verification, and data management. -
Campaign Finance Report State of Wisconsin
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT STATE OF WISCONSIN Is this report an Amendment? No COMMITTEE IDENTIFICATION Name of Committee Friends of Patrick Miles Address 5410 North Pass OFFICE USE ONLY City, State, ZIP McFarland, WI 53558 GAB # ID NAME OF REPORT Jan 20__ Continuing Pre-Primary 20__ Spring Fall Special July 20__ Continuing Pre-election 2010 Spring Fall Special SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS Column A Column B Audited Totals 1. RECEIPTS This Period YTD Office Use Only A. Contributions including Loans from Individuals $ 5,444.88 $ 5,444.88 B. Contributions from Committees (Transfers-In) $ 700.00 $ 700.00 C. Other Income and Commercial Loans $ 2.00 $ 2.00 TOTAL RECEIPTS (Add totals from 1A, 1B, and 1C) $ 6,146.88 $ 6,146.88 1. DISBURSEMENTS A. Gross Expenditures $ 3,496.73 $ 3,496.73 B. Contributions to Committees (Transfers-Out) $ - $ - TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS (Add totals from 2A and 2B) $ 3,496.73 $ 3,496.73 CASH SUMMARY Cash Balance at Beginning of Report$ 2,564.47 $ 2,564.47 Total Receipts$ 6,146.88 $ 6,146.88 Subtotal$ 8,711.35 $ 8,711.35 Total Disbursements$ 3,496.73 $ 3,496.73 CASH BALANCE AT END OF REPORT $ 5,214.62 $ 5,214.62 INCURRED OBLIGATIONS (at close of period) $ 755.61 LOANS (at close of period) $ - I certify that I have examined this report and to the best of my knowledge and belief it is true, correct and complete. Type or Print Name of Candidate or Treasurer Signature of Candidate or Treasurer Date Daytime Phone NOTE: The information on this form is required by ss.