Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) is raking in millions of dollars to fund his campaign against a recall effort to remove him from office. Out-of-state donors have poured money into his campaign coffers, making up more than 60 percent of the $4.5 million Walker raised in five weeks. And that includes the $1 million he received from four out-of-state donors alone, who donated $250,000 each — all thanks to a loophole in state law:

Normally, a governor or candidate for governor can accept a maximum of $10,000 from an individual during a four-year campaign cycle. But a quirk in state law lifts all limits for recall targets while petitions are circulated and election officials determine how many signatures have been submitted.

Walker’s most recent campaign finance report covers December 11 to January 17, the day Walker’s opponents filed petitions with more than 1 million signatures to recall him from office — when only 540,000 were needed. It could take up to 60 days for the Government Accountability Board, which runs state elections, to review the signatures.

Walker’s campaign spokeswoman Ciara Matthews contended that he only is trying to counter the money national out-of-state unions will spend on the recall effort, but there is little evidence that unions are even capable of competing with the kind of deep pocketed groups and wealthy individuals that support Walker. Last year, corporate interest groups sprang to the rescue of a Walker ally on the state supreme court, Justice David Prosser, after polls began to show Prosser’s reelection bid in trouble. This influx of corporate money rapidly overwhelmed the much smaller donations made by groups supporting Prosser’s opponent, and he managed to squeak out a narrow victory.

So far, Walker has an enormous fundraising lead over potential opponents. In the same time period where Walker raised millions, the state Democratic party raised more than $394,000, with $40,000 being the largest donation to the party. United Wisconsin, the group spearheading the recall effort along with the Democratic party, raised $86,379. And former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, who has announced she is running against Walker, had $27,000 in her campaign account as of June 30.

While it’s not clear if Walker’s opponents will match his millions in campaign donations, it is perfectly clear that Walker is benefiting from an unfair loophole in state law allowing just a handful of wealthy individuals to drown out the more than a million Wisconsin residents who want to see him recalled.

For three years, Senate Republicans have waged an unprecedented campaign of obstruction against President Obama’s nominees — using the filibuster to shut down entire agencies and stoking a nationwide vacancy crisis on the federal bench. In his State of the Union speech last night, President Obama met this obstructionism with an equally bold proposal, calling for filibusters on nominations to effectively be eliminated after 90 days:

Some of what’s broken has to do with the way Congress does its business these days. A simple majority is no longer enough to get anything, even routine business, passed through the Senate. Neither party has been blameless in these tactics. Now, both parties should put an end to it. For starters, I ask the senate to pass a simple rule that all judicial and public servant nominations receive an up or down vote within 90 days.

Watch it:

President Obama’s call for filibuster reform is significant, but it is probably less significant than the fact that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) largely endorsed the proposal — although with an exception for Supreme Court nominees. In 2011, a major push for filibuster reform fizzled in no small part because many Senate Democrats feared the consequences of Republicans having a free hand to appoint radical judges and other nominees more than they feared the consequences of Democratic presidents being completely unable to govern. Reid’s support for Obama’s proposal suggests that the winds are shifting, and Senate Democrats have begun to realize that it is better to have two parties that are able to govern rather than having their party be hamstrung.

Yet while this apparently growing consensus on the need for filibuster reform is significant, it still must overcome the Senate’s arcane rules which typically require a 67 vote supermajority to amend the body’s rules. Supporters of reform have three possible paths forward:

• Bipartisan Consensus: Wishing for bipartisan cooperation in the age of Mitch McConnell is a bit like hoping that the Senate will be rescued by a magical unicorn. Nevertheless, the fact remains that no one knows who will be president in 2013 or who will control the Senate. It is possible that some Senate Republicans would sign onto a filibuster reform plan in the hopes that they could benefit from it in the future.
• The January Option: Because the Constitution forbids a past legislature from tying the hands of future lawmakers, a newly-elected Senate has the power to eliminate or revise the filibuster with just 51 senators voting in favor. The catch, of course, is that the next Senate will not be seated until January, so this option does nothing to prevent filibusters for the entirety of 2012.
• Just Nuke It Already: In 2005, back when George W. Bush was nominating judges, Senate Republicans proposed the so-called “nuclear option,” which would have allowed them to eliminate judicial filibusters mid-way through a Senate session with only 51 votes. Of the three options, the nuclear option stands on the weakest legal footing, however, and it is unlikely to win the support of many of the Democratic senators who denounced it in 2005.

It is unclear if, much less how, the Senate will take up President Obama’s call for filibuster reform. What is clear, however, is that the status quo cannot continue. It is not President Obama who suffers when Mitch McConnell wages his campaign of obstruction, it’s the millions of consumers who depend on functioning federal agencies to safeguard their rights, the workers who depend on workplace safety and fair wage laws in order to provide for them families, and the thousands of litigants who wait months or years for justice in a judiciary burdened by far too many vacancies.

Georgia’s radical anti-immigration law has already cost the state’s farmers millions of dollars in lost crops, and studies show it will continue to threaten the state’s economy in years to come. Now, another anti-immigrant policy might cost the University of Georgia football team one of its top incoming players.

Chester Brown, a high school senior in Hinesville, Georgia decided in July that he would play his college football at Georgia. Brown was so excited to play for the Bulldogs that he had the date of his commitment tattooed on his arm. But last week, Brown, the son of Samoan immigrants, abruptly announced that he was withdrawing his commitment, a decision that was likely due to an anti-immigrant policy adopted by the Georgia state college and university system in 2010, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports:

However, a variety of people with direct knowledge of the situation confirmed to the AJC on Tuesday that Brown’s change of heart was because his admissions application to UGA was rejected because of a controversial Board of Regents policy that was adopted in October 2010.

That policy…states that an undocumented student can’t take the seat of an otherwise academically qualified Georgia resident who has been turned away because of capacity constraints.

The policy that may ultimately keep Brown from playing football at Georgia states, “A person who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible for admission to any University System institution which, for the two most recent academic years, did not admit all academically qualified applicants (except for cases in which applicants were rejected for non-academic reasons).” It was instituted in 2010 after the state Board of Regents, which oversees state colleges and universities, found that less than a hundredth of a percent of students — 521 of roughly 311,000 — were undocumented. Within the 511 was a “smaller subset” of students that were considered “illegal,” according to the AJC.

Brown’s mother “insists that he was born in the United States,” but the family lacks documentation to prove it. There is, however, still a chance Brown could realize his dream of becoming a Bulldog. His high school principal has been in contact with both admissions officials and immigration attorneys in attempts to help Brown gain admission.

During Monday’s GOP debate in Florida, Mitt Romney advocated for a policy of “self-deportation” for undocumented immigrants — a policy borrowed from the anti-immigrant hate group NumbersUSA. As one of his advisers admitted several months ago, Romney’s hard-line approach to the undocumented population consists of making immigrants’ lives so unbearable that they voluntarily choose to leave the country.

Today fellow GOP contender Newt Gingrich condemned Romney’s idea as “inhumane” during an interview with Univision:

Republican Newt Gingrich says Mitt Romney’s call for self-deportation of illegal immigrants is an “Obama-level” fantasy that is inhumane to long-established families living in America.

The former House speaker ridiculed that part of Romney’s immigration policy during a forum Wednesday with the Spanish-language network Univision. Gingrich laughed at the idea and said it wouldn’t work.

Romney said during a recent debate that he favors what he calls “self-deportation” over policies that require the federal government to round up illegal immigrants and send them back to their home countries.

Gingrich has embraced a more moderate approach to immigration than Romney and was recently endorsed by Somos Republicans, the nation’s largest Hispanic Republican group.

Romney, facing criticism for not being conservative enough, has tried to outflank many of his opponents on the right when it comes to immigration. Yet surprisingly, his harsh stance has been largely overlooked by many voters.

The Obama campaign recently dubbed Romney the most extreme GOP candidate on immigration — a claim borne out by a comparison of the candidates’ positions.

Missouri may soon join a growing group of states that have enacted laws requiring citizens to present a certain form of photo identification before being permitted to cast a ballot. These laws are widely denounced by voting rights advocates because they disproportionately disenfranchise the poor, college students, and minorities.

On Tuesday, the Missouri House Committee on Elections voted 7-3 in favor of Rep. Shane Schoeller’s (R) voter ID bill. The party line vote now sends the legislation to the floor, where it will almost certainly pass the Republican-controlled House with ease.

The Kansas City Star notes that Republicans have been trying for years to enact voter ID legislation in the Show Me state:

In 2006, Republicans passed a photo ID bill that was later struck down by the Missouri Supreme Court. The court said the law amounted to a “heavy and substantial burden on Missourians’ free exercise of the right of suffrage.”

In response to the court’s ruling, lawmakers passed a proposed constitutional amendment allowing a photo ID requirement to vote. That amendment is scheduled to be on the ballot this fall, although it is being challenged in court.

Legislation implementing a photo ID requirement, which was similar to the bill Schoeller is currently sponsoring as well as one passed by a Senate committee on Monday, also passed last year but was later vetoed by Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat.

Though Nixon will almost certainly veto the legislation again if it comes to his desk, Republicans are on the cusp of being able to override a veto. A two-thirds majority is required in each chamber to override a veto, a hurdle the GOP is four House votes away from surpassing. Currently, the GOP currently controls 77 percent of seats in the Senate and 65 percent of the House.