In recent years, the ill will spawned by campaign rhetoric seems to linger past the election season. As a result, bi-partisan cooperation has become more difficult and leaders are less willing to offer solutions on controversial issues. Like the first draft, the revision does not endorse any specific reform proposal but offers criteria from Catholic ethical and social teachings as a basis for evaluating reform proposals. The draft urges citizens to evaluate reform proposal in light of four questions. The draft also reaffirms the view that public financing can be an appropriate way to fund most election costs, but does not call for total public financing.
Government is the means by which society seeks to identify, achieve, and protect the common good.
The revised statement also retains language in the first draft regarding the regulation of campaign expenditures by groups other than candidates. The revised draft suggests that regulation of this kind does not automatically inhibit free speech. However, the draft suggests that such regulation should focus on the issue of disclosure of spending sources as opposed to limiting the content of the message. The release of the revised draft comes at a time when several news reports of the effect of campaign donations on legislative activity and mounting criticism of the legislature's failure to address many serious issues. In addition, the Wisconsin Counties Association recently announced an initiative to place a referendum on campaign finance reform on the November ballot in all 72 counties.