Tag Archives: Alison Bauter

Gallery

Post-election politics wrap

Phwew! Coming up on three months here at The Journal Times, and something about early November (can’t imagine what) really made that time fly! In about a week I’ll celebrate my third month in the professional world, and my 23rd … Continue reading

State smoking ban causes little drag on restaurants

Image

Second front-page story this week!
… since I’m probably part of the last generation of journalists who will know or care what that means, feel I must brag just a little bit. :)

By Alison Bauter
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Wisconsin’s workplace smoking ban turned 2 years old Thursday, and despite critics’ fears, overall sales in the hospitality industry are up slightly.

The Wisconsin Restaurant Association’s Pete Hanson said Wisconsin taverns and eateries followed national economic trends and largely were unaffected by the ban.

“It wasn’t a boon to our industry, but it doesn’t seem to have hurt our sales,” said Hanson, the association’s director of public affairs.

Based on state tax collection data, Hanson said restaurant and tavern sales overall increased 1% in 2010 and 2% in 2011, mirroring national trends. Conversely, the subcategory of bars and taverns saw around a 4% decrease during that time, but Hanson notes that trend has been ongoing for many years.

“You can’t really attribute it to the smoking ban because there’s a long-term trend there,” he said.

Overall, Hanson said the smoking ban “has been positive for the restaurant industry. It’s been great for the health of our employees and customers.”

The statewide ban on smoking in public places and workplaces took effect July 5, 2010, prohibiting smoking in state or local government buildings, taverns, restaurants, stores, hotels, day care centers, state institutions, college residence halls, hospitals and more.

Critics, particularly those in the tavern industry, saw the ban as an unnecessary intrusion on private business that would deter customers who want to smoke. Supporters said the law protected the health of both customers and workers, such as bartenders, who would otherwise be exposed to secondhand smoke. Moreover, proponents said, the ban would bring more business into restaurants and bars that asthmatics and other nonsmokers previously avoided.

Although Pete Madland, executive director for the Tavern League of Wisconsin, agrees that public sentiment favors the ban, he’s still concerned that it contributed to the group’s declining membership.

“Our membership is down about 250 over the last two years, and we attribute a lot of that to places that have just gone out of business,” Madland said.

Madland said it’s not just the smoking ban (after all, it took effect in the midst of a recession), but the law was definitely “a contributing factor” to many bars closing their doors.

Maureen Busalacchi, executive director of SmokeFree Wisconsin, disputed that as anecdotal.

“The economic numbers don’t match that,” she countered.

For taverns frequented by smokers, such as Beaver Dam’s Dockside Pub and Grille, the best recourse has been to compromise by building so-called smoking rooms, attached open-air shelters for smokers’ use.

“It helps me a lot in the winter,” said Dockside owner Kathy Martin. “But, unfortunately, not everyone (has the space to) do that.”

Not only are smoking spaces such as Martin’s physically untenable for many bars, they can prove tricky from a legal standpoint. Under the law, an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited is defined as a space with a roof and at least three “substantial walls.” But there has been debate over what constitutes a substantial wall.

In April 2011, Martin herself received complaints but was not fined for her smoking area.

Overall, compliance with the law has been high, with only 1% of businesses statewide receiving complaints, according to the state Department of Health Services.

Martin, also president of the Dodge County Tavern League, said despite the smoking area, her business has taken a 30% hit.

“People were used to coming in, sitting at the bar, and having a drink and a cigarette,” Martin said, adding that nowadays, “people don’t stay.”

But Busalacchi said it is almost impossible to quantify why customers stop coming, especially in difficult economic times.

When the Legislature reconvenes this spring, Martin said the Tavern League hopes to pursue legislation to permit indoor smoking areas closed off from the rest of the bar, allowing owners to “please both groups – both smokers and nonsmokers.”

“It will never go back to being able to smoke in the bar,” Martin said, “but we’re hoping for changes in the law that will make things a lot easier on the industry.”

Busalacchi said SmokeFree Wisconsin would oppose any legislation of that nature.

“You start messing around with partially enclosed or that kind of thing, and you end up contaminating all of the air,” she said.

SmokeFree Wisconsin will push the Legislature to look at the small, flavored cigars sold cheaply at many gas stations and convenience stores that Busalacchi said target young people and encourage them to smoke.

The group also is working to limit smoking in public venues on tribal lands statewide, including casinos.

Spending on state recalls exceeds $125 million, group says

Article that played on the front page of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and was featured in Politico’s Morning Score, following the release of final estimates on the cost of the recalls to the public and campaigns/special interests.

By Alison BauterImage
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Madison - Candidates and outside groups spent $80 million or more in the governor’s recall race, more than doubling the previous record for a Wisconsin gubernatorial contest, according to estimates released Thursday.

Counting the $44 million dropped on state Senate recalls last summer and the additional money spent on the four Senate recall races and a lieutenant governor’s recall contest this week, $125 million to $130 million was spent in 2011 and 2012 on recalls, says the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.

The Madison group, which tracks campaign spending, estimates that when final reports are in, they’ll show about $80 million has been spent on behalf of both candidates in the governor’s race. That would more than double the $37.4 million record set in the 2010 governor’s race between the same two candidates.

According to Democracy Campaign Executive Director Mike McCabe, campaigns and special interests on both sides engaged in “something akin to a nuclear arms race” to round up money to spend on advertisements targeting a minute percentage of undecided voters.

Exit polls from CNN show 86% of voters had made up their mind over a month before the election.

With more than a year’s head start, some $47 million was spent on behalf of Gov. Scott Walker, according to McCabe. Some $19 million was spent on behalf of losing Democratic challenger Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, he said. Those numbers were as of May 21; the $80 million estimate includes late spending not yet reported.

Many Barrett supporters blame his 53% to 46% defeat on the spending gap.

State Democratic Party spokesman Graeme Zielinski said the cash advantage allowed Walker to “muddy the waters when it came to his jobs record, his involvement in a criminal corruption probe and his massive cuts to health care and education.”

Walker benefited from his profile as a national Republican hero, which brought in millions in out-of-state contributions, as well as a quirk in state law that allowed him to raise unlimited donations for a time to defend against a recall. The governor said his opponents also benefited from out-of-state money.

Marquette pollster and political science professor Charles Franklin said if money contributed as directly as many suggest, then Wisconsin would have seen a much wider gap in the polls.

“There is a point of diminishing returns (from campaign spending),” Franklin said, “At that kind of dollar value, you’ve surely reached that point.”

Franklin, who conducted a series of in-depth polls in the run-up to the recall election, said if the negative ads had an effect, it was likely on Barrett’s favorability rating, not the margin between the two candidates.

ImageIn January and February, Franklin’s Marquette Law School poll found Barrett’s favorability rating high, while 35% of those polled said they did not know enough about him to form an opinion.

But as Barrett’s statewide visibility increased, voters’ opinions shifted from overall favorable to unfavorable. By the end of the race, Barrett’s favorability ratings had fallen and only 11% were unable to form an opinion.

“Given the amount of negative advertisements targeting (Barrett), if it had an effect, this is exactly what we would expect to see,” Franklin said.

Conversely, Walker’s favorability fluctuated, but never drastically changed, “not surprising” given that voters had more time to evaluate the governor, Franklin said.

Christian Schneider of the conservative Wisconsin Policy Research Institute said both sides had substantial funding over the past year and a half. He said the spending edge for Republicans probably didn’t give them a huge advantage, given how many people made up their mind well before the election.

“It looks like the cake was baked a couple months ago,” Schneider said.

Nonetheless, party and special interest groups continued fueling the multimillion-dollar race, something McCabe and Franklin attributed to outside groups nationalizing Wisconsin’s fight.

“National interests have a national agenda,” McCabe said. “They wanted to make sure that the Wisconsin election would be a favorable agenda for them. They thought, ‘We’re not going to take any chances.’ “

Both Franklin and McCabe believe there are more high-dollar races in Wisconsin’s future, but suspect it won’t see another $80 million governor campaign for some time.

While campaigns and special interest groups may have spent $125 million or more, Wisconsin taxpayers have contributed over $20 million to the county and municipal costs of holding the 15 recall elections, as well as costs incurred by the state elections board tasked with verifying petitions and overseeing elections. The primary and general election for the statewide recalls this year cost about $18 million, while last summer’s Senate recalls cost taxpayers $2.1 million.

Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel staff contributed to this report.