Most people who deal in finance make good cost-benefit analyses as part of their everyday job. In other words, how much do I spend and how much do I get out of spending it? In the case of Wisconsin businessman Michael Eisenga, it apparently became cheaper to buy political clout than it did to pay child support.
The Wisconsin State Journal broke the story about Eisenga’s role in state Rep. Joel Kleefisch’s controversial child-support cap bill. The bill would have locked off child support at $150,000 annually and, not too coincidentally, would have saved Eisenga about $66,000 annually, given his $18,000 a month support obligations.
Emails and a set of drafting documents revealed that Eisenga and his attorney offered line-by-line instructions on how to write the bill. Over the years Eisenga had donated $3,500 to Kleefisch as well as $7,500 to his wife, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch. He also gave Governor Deadeyes $15K to boot.
Dan Bice and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel followed up with this, drawing more attention to Kleefisch’s actions. Just the other day, Kleefisch withdrew his bill, citing “careful deliberation and consulting with my colleagues.” Apparently the media attention wasn’t helping either.
As much as it would be easy to complain about how rich people get away with anything, my outrage is more directed at Eisenga’s approach to his obligations.
Look, I don’t know the first thing about being rich, nor do I think it should cost $150,000 (or $216,000, in his case) to raise a couple kids. Unless this guy was “Duggar-level prolific,” I have no idea what the hell they’re spending all this money on.
That said, I’d hate to be the kid who had to deal with the fact that my dad basically had his legislative lapdog write a bill that would let him cut me off from some financial help.
Think about that for a minute. He had someone WRITE A LAW with the express purpose of creating a negative outcome FOR HIS OWN KIDS.
If this guy couldn’t afford it, that might be one thing, but there are venues in which you can petition the court for lower payments. In this case, he CAN afford it and JUST DOESN’T WANT TO.
And again, just to reiterate this here, IT’S HIS OWN CHILDREN GETTING SCREWED.
I can’t seem to imagine a time in which my parents would look at me and say, “Son, we love you, but we love our money more.”
And yet that’s exactly what this seems to be saying.
I bet the holidays at the Eisenga house are a hoot.
3 thoughts on “Why pay for your kids when you can buy a legislator instead?”
from experience. the less his kids spend time w/ this asshole, the better. i am much better off seeing my greedy paternal unit only at funerals.
Be fair. He loves winning the game and screwing over his ex at least as much as his money.
People keep reporting this incorrectly. The new law wouldnt cap the payments to the children but cap the way the fathers income and assets were considered. Like the cap on ss taxes it would artificially exclude income above 150,000 a year and exclude consideration of assets. So a guy worth millions would pay no more for his three kids thsn a guy who makes 150,000 a year with no assets. Thats an enormous difference.
Comments are closed.