I think my colleague Jake Herrera may have to steel himself for disappointment after challenging state Rep. Daniel LeMahieu, R-Oostberg, to explain his reasons for introducing a bill that would prevent University Health Services from distributing emergency contraception. Explaining their positions, responding to questions and debating issues are not things that Republican legislators in this state like to do, either with college columnists or Democratic colleagues.
Remember Assembly Bill 475, the asininely titled Defense of Marriage Act? Democrat after Democrat spoke in opposition to the amendment on the floor of the Assembly. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, delivered a powerful speech imploring legislators not to \open our constitution, gut it and plant a piece of hate."" Rep. Jim Kreuser, D-Kenosha, made the practical point that the amendment was redundant because Wisconsin already defines marriage as ""between a husband and wife.""
The Republican response? Nada. They took no questions. They offered no rebuttals. The only peep came from the assembly speaker, Rep. John Gard, R-Peshtigo, who read a brief prepared statement at the end and did not invite further comment.
Fortunately, the days of ducking legislative debate may be coming to an end. The WisconsinEye Public Affairs Network is scheduled to begin televising unedited, gavel-to-gavel coverage of state Senate and Assembly sessions later this year on cable television. WisconsinEye, the Wisconsin equivalent to the national cable channel C-SPAN, will be the first privately funded network of its kind. Network President Jeff Roberts has raised about $4 million of the $10 million he needs to get the channel on the air, but said he feels confident that loans and increased fundraising spearheaded by seven former Wisconsin governors will bring in the needed money.
As for content, several legislators have issued proposals ranging from banning split screens, reaction shots and close-ups to giving the presiding officer of the chamber a ""kill"" button that could immediately shut off the feed. The reason provided for the latter by Rep. John Townsend, R-Fond du Lac, apparently with a straight face, was that it might be necessary ""for security reasons"" in the event of a hostage crisis or terrorist attack on the chamber floor.
Another richly ironic, yet supposedly innocuous move was made by Rep. Stephen Freese, R-Dodgeville, who motioned successfully to go to closed session for a joint committee hearing on WisconsinEye, evicting reporters and spectators from the room.
Luckily, the most egregious restrictions on content have been stricken from the agreement among the company and state, and WisconsinEye, for now, will be allowed to proceed unfettered. When it will officially be up and running, however, is still uncertain, as the start date has been pushed back again and again since 2002. In addition to financing, the network must also work out deals with the executive and judicial branches to televise those proceedings. It must also address Democratic demands for equal partisan representation on the network's oversight committee, instead of the current four-to-two Republican majority.
Furthermore, as specified in the contract for which it was the sole bidder, WisconsinEye will be aired in areas serviced by Charter and Time Warner cable but will not appear on satellite TV or in rural areas not reached by the two companies.
While all the concerns are valid, legislators of both parties should clear the runway for WisconsinEye as soon as possible. C-SPAN has been instrumental in bringing the American people closer to their representatives in the U.S. Congress, and given the recent outbreak of criminal activity among several Wisconsin legislators of both parties, it is high time to allow Wisconsinites the opportunity to more closely scrutinize their elected leaders. Assembly Republicans who refuse to debate or answer questions may find it a bit more difficult to hide from their positions with a camera lens fixed upon them.
---
Several weeks ago, I mentioned a 19-year old Wisconsin woman who was forced to enlist in the military to pay for college. She was assured by her recruiter that she would not be sent to Iraq, and I was assured by the Army spokesperson I interviewed that lengths of service in combat areas were limited to ""12 months, boots on the ground."" That woman has been given official notice of her unit's deployment to Iraq... for one to two years.
