Milwaukee News Buzz, the daily news home of Milwaukee Magazine, has an interesting article on the blog-driven controversy over State Sen. Jeff Plale’s campaign finance reports.
(My take: I know and respect Jeff Plale and think some of these blogs are way, way out of line on this issue. Even suggesting a “quid pro quo” without proof is irresponsible.)
Read the story here.
And here are some other headlines of interest from around the area:
- A Wall of Sound Plays at South Milwaukee Farmers Market (South Milwaukee NOW)
- St. Francis City Administrator to Retire (Journal Sentinel)
- Oak Creek Hasn’t Narrowed List of City Administrator Candidates (Journal Sentinel)
- Hoan Bridge Lane Closures Start This Week (Journal Sentinel)
- Greendale Opts for Upgrades to Paramedics (Journal Sentinel)
- The Big Race (Bay View Compass)
South Milwaukee Blog 
Erik, while this may be a “blog-drive controversy,” it’s an issue that merits discussion. The fact is, a majority of Sen. Plale’s campaign contributions have come from outside the district, and a good amount of money was donated to his campaign by individuals from the telecommunications, cable, and energy industries, all of whom Sen. Plale has advocated for during his time in the State Senate.
And what have Sen. Plale’s constituents gotten for his work in the State Senate? Higher cable TV rates, thanks to cable TV deregulation legislation he authored (which he assured constituents would actually lower their cable TV rates). I like Sen. Plale – I think he’s a nice guy – I just can’t continue to vote for him given his record as a State Senator.
Zach: I hear you, and I also have my disagreements with Sen. Plale politically. But I think it’s unfair to even bring up “pay for play” or “quid pro quo” without proof. The simple presence of campaign contributions is not enough. As chair of the Senate’s Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail, I fully expect Plale will have significant contributions from these groups. And I expect others in those positions, no matter their party, have similar contribution patterns. That said, simply because donors support these candidates does not mean the candidates are beholden to them. Saying so, even hinting so, without proof is wrong.