[EL] Civic Courage, Indeed

[Bill Maurer]

I actually had a more fundamental question.  If I'm reading that story correctly, under Wisconsin law, the subject of the investigation cannot publicly discuss the subpoenas served upon him or her.  I've heard of grand jury testimony being secret, but a restriction on the ability of the subject of an investigation to make public statements seems unusual.  I fully admit to knowing nothing of criminal law.  Is this usual?  And how can it be constitutional?

Bill

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Schmitt
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 7:33 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Civic Courage, Indeed

OK, I'll bite. What does disclosure have to do with this story? It appears that a Wisconsin prosecutor has reason to think that some Wisconsin law was broken, and has subpoenaed a lot of information. That's what prosecutors do -- they subpoena information that otherwise would be private. And defense attorneys contest subpoenas, and hearings and sometimes trials or settlements ensue.
Did these groups violate Wisconsin law? I don't know, and I don't think you know or the unnamed Wall Street Journal writer knows. There's no doubt that there's plenty of prosecutorial excess -- e.g., the Ted Stevens case -- but that's a very different issue than disclosure.

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com<mailto:hoersting at gmail.com>> wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304799404579155953286552832

Can we yet stop calling it the "informational interest" in disclosure, and start calling it the "retributional interest," as is rightly deserved?

And if ever there were reason to reconsider Buckley's in-kind contribution / independent expenditure line, this is it.

Welcome to your brave new world, members of the left. May it never come back on you. (Though, if you've been reading the papers lately, and closely enough, you know it already has).

--
Stephen M. Hoersting

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

________________________________

Spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04KP3ykAg&m=903a4f52fee8&t=20131118&c=s>
Not spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04KP3ykAg&m=903a4f52fee8&t=20131118&c=n>
Forget previous vote<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04KP3ykAg&m=903a4f52fee8&t=20131118&c=f>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131118/5547d071/attachment.html>