[EL] Walker/Wisconsin Club for Growth

[Andy Kroll]

I thought this sentence, on p. 128, was interesting:

"Notably, prior to the 2011 Wisconsin Senate recall elections, the national
Club for Growth organization raised concerns about coordination or
interaction between [Wisconsin Club for Growth] and [Friends of Scott
Walker] as early as 2009."

Supporting footnote points to a statement made by David Keating about
"legal concerns" about WiCFG's advertising strategy. Even folks inside the
CFG organization were concerned about coordination?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1201720-john-doe-ii-docs.html#document/p128/a163747


On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I see Adam's link was only to the article.
>
> Let me be clear: The release of the documents in this matter -- all things
> being equal; given that the raid has taken place -- only helps the targets
> of this investigation. Given that Team Schmitz raided these Wisconsin
> citizens, and put the matter under a John Doe seal, I am for the release of
> the documents. Well done, Easterbrook.
>
> It is the underlying legal theory and allegations with which I have
> reservations.
>
> Best,
>
> Steve
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Michael P McDonald <mmcdon at gmu.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> And the Wisconsin Club for Growth agreed to the document release, if not
>> embraced it, so they might wage "lawfare", too.
>>
>> From Andrew Grossman, attorney for Wisconsin Club for Growth:
>>
>> "These documents show how the John Doe prosecutors adopted a blatantly
>> unconstitutional interpretation of Wisconsin law that they used to launch a
>> secret criminal investigation targeting conservatives throughout
>> Wisconsin," Grossman said in an email Thursday. "Sunlight is the best
>> disinfectant, and this is a story that needs to be told to prevent more
>> abuses and to hold the John Doe prosecutors accountable for violating the
>> rights of Wisconsinites."
>>
>>
>> http://www.northjersey.com/news/prosecutors-wisconsin-gov-walker-part-of-criminal-scheme-1.1038361
>>
>> (Noted with full irony the statement that "sunlight is the best
>> disinfectant" with regards to an issue touching campaign finance)
>>
>> ============
>> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
>> Associate Professor
>> George Mason University
>> 4400 University Drive - 3F4
>> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>>
>> phone:   703-993-4191 (office)
>> e-mail:  dr.michael.p.mcdonald at gmail.com
>> web:     http://elections.gmu.edu
>> twitter: @ElectProject
>>
>> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Adam Bonin
>> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 3:29 PM
>> To: 'Steve Hoersting'; 'Byron Tau'
>> Cc: 'law-election at UCI.edu'
>> Subject: Re: [EL] Walker/Wisconsin Club for Growth
>>
>> Let's be accurate: the prosecutor assembled this evidence over months and
>> years, and he did not make the decision to release anything today.  It was
>> 7th Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook who ordered the documents to be
>> released.
>> http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-judge-unseals-hundreds-of-documents-in-john-doe-probe-b99295017z1-263839791.html
>> ]
>>
>> --Adam
>>
>> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Steve
>> Hoersting
>> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:57 PM
>> To: Byron Tau
>> Cc: law-election at UCI.edu
>> Subject: Re: [EL] Walker/Wisconsin Club for Growth
>>
>> I am not the source you're looking for, Byron.
>>
>> But I will say this is regrettable. If issue advocacy is at the heart of
>> the activity in question, as all court documents up-to-now bear out, then
>> any "excitement" on anyone's part doesn't raise the facts to the level of
>> legal significance.
>>
>> Boy, these are interesting allegations for this prosecutor to make:
>>
>> 1) Six months out from the November election.
>>
>> 2) On the heels of Walker's settlement negotiations. I haven't heard the
>> results of those. Are we to infer Walker didn't see the case the same way
>> the prosecutors did, was unwilling to settle, and this press release is
>> meant to correct his thinking?
>>
>> 3) In hopes of winning another set of elections using Lawfare? If so,
>> this is becoming a pattern.
>>
>> Allow me to point out that these events -- IRS targeting and "lost"
>> emails, as an example -- mark a trend no society can long withstand.
>> Whether Democrat, Green, Libertarian, or Republican, this is not a state of
>> affairs you want your kids growing up in.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Byron Tau <btau at politico.com> wrote:
>> If anyone has been closely following the legal issues in this Walker case
>> and wants to walk me through them, I'm at either number below and poking
>> around on something regarding the election law around this.
>>
>> --
>> Byron Tau
>> Lobbying and campaign finance reporter || POLITICO
>> c: 202-441-1171
>> d: 703-341-4610
>> Follow: @byrontau
>> Subscribe to: http://www.politico.com/politicoinfluence/
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Rick Hasen [
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:34 PM
>> To: law-election at UCI.edu
>> Subject: [EL] more news 6/19/14
>> Breaking: "Prosecutors allege Walker at center of 'criminal scheme'"
>> Posted on June 19, 2014 10:30 am by Rick Hasen
>> Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
>> Prosecutors allege that Gov. Scott Walker was at the center of an effort
>> to illegally coordinate fundraising among conservative groups to help his
>> campaign and those of Republican senators fend off recall elections during
>> 2011 and '12, according to documents unsealed Thursday.
>> In the documents, prosecutors lay out what they call a "criminal scheme"
>> to bypass state election laws by Walker, his campaign and two top deputies
>> -- R.J. Johnson and Deborah Jordahl.
>> The governor and his close confidants helped raise money and control
>> spending through 12 conservative groups during the recall elections,
>> according to the prosecutors' filings.
>> The documents include an email in which Walker tells Karl Rove, former
>> top adviser to President George W. Bush, that Johnson would lead the
>> coordination campaign. Johnson is also chief adviser to Wisconsin Club for
>> Growth, a conservative group active in the recall elections.
>> You can find the documents here.
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance, chicanery
>> Texas Swagger Costs It Attorneys Fees in Voting Rights Case
>> Posted on June 19, 2014 10:21 am by Rick Hasen
>> See this order in State of Texas v. Davis:
>> This matter presents a case study in how not to respond to a motion for
>> attorney fees and costs. At issue is whether defendant-intervenors, who
>> prevailed in Voting Rights Act litigation before a three-judge panel, may
>> recoup attorney fees and costs even though the Supreme Court vacated that
>> opinion in light of the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in a different
>> lawsuit that declared a section of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.
>> A quick search of the Federal Reporter reveals the complexity of this
>> narrow question. Yet, rather than engage the fee applicants, Plaintiff
>> Texas basically ignores the arguments supporting an award of fees and
>> costs. In a three-page filing entitled "Advisory," Texas trumpets the
>> Supreme Court's decision, expresses indignation at having to respond at
>> all, and presumes that the motion for attorney fees is so frivolous that
>> Texas need not provide further briefing in opposition unless requested.
>> Such an opposition is insufficient in this jurisdiction. Circuit precedent
>> and the Local Rules of this Court provide that the failure to respond to an
>> opposing party's arguments results in waiver as to the unaddressed
>> contentions, and the Court finds that Texas's "Advisory" presents no
>> opposition on the applicable law. Accordingly, the Court will award the
>> requested fees and costs.
>>
>>
>> Posted in Voting Rights Act
>> "First Person Singular: The dirty secrets of ballot counting"
>> Posted on June 19, 2014 10:01 am by Rick Hasen
>> Paul Mitchell has lead story at Electionline Weekly.
>>
>> Posted in election administration
>> "Soft Money's Squishy Political Influence"
>> Posted on June 19, 2014 9:20 am by Rick Hasen
>> NYT's "The Upshot" on Tokaji-Strause.
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance
>> J. Christian Adams Wrongly Suggests Poll Workers Should Exclude Democrats
>> from Voting in Mississippi Primary, Ignoring Relevant Case Law and an AG
>> Opinion
>> Posted on June 19, 2014 9:12 am by Rick Hasen
>> Via Josh Marshall, comes a story at Breitbart, Former DOJ Attorney:
>> Illegal for Democrats to Vote in MS GOP Primary Runoff.  Here's the
>> relevant part of the article:
>> J. Christian Adams, a former Civil Rights Division attorney at the
>> Department of Justice with experience litigating election law cases in
>> Mississippi, said a law there prevents people from voting in the primary
>> for candidates they don't plan to support in the general election....
>> The Mississippi law Adams cites, MS Code 23-15-575, states: "No person
>> shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends
>> to support the nominations made in which he participates."
>> "Mississippi law prohibits Democrats from voting in a Republican
>> primary," Adams said in an emailed statement. "Obviously poll workers
>> aren't mind readers. But if someone doesn't intend to support the nominee
>> in November, then that person isn't allowed to vote in the Republican
>> primary."
>> In addition, the state Democratic Party sued Gov. Haley Barbour and
>> others in the mid-2000s regarding just that matter--prompting United States
>> District Judge W. Allen Pepper to write in a June 8, 2007, opinion that it
>> is the responsibility and right of the political party holding a primary
>> election to ensure that the elections are fair and legal. In the case of a
>> Republican primary and runoff, only Republicans vote, and in the case of a
>> Democrat primary and runoff, only Democrats vote--and it is the role of the
>> political parties to ensure that process is handled correctly.
>> The Supreme Court determined in a 2005 case that the First Amendment
>> "protects the right of political parties to associate with fellow members
>> and disassociate with non-members," Judge Pepper wrote in his opinion. So
>> technically it's the party's responsibility--i.e., in this case, state GOP
>> chairman Joe Nosef's responsibility--to protect GOP voters' First Amendment
>> rights by working to keep Democrats from voting in the GOP primary runoff.
>> Here's what Adams does not tell you in the piece: Judge Pepper's opinion
>> in Mississippi State Democratic Party v. Barbour, 491 F.Supp.2d 641 (N.D.
>> Miss. 2007) was reversed and remanded in an opinion by Judge Edith Jones
>> for a unanimous 5th Circuit, 529 F.3d 538 (5th Cir. 2008). In the course of
>> holding that the state Democratic Party lacked standing and that the case
>> was not appropriate for federal court review, Judge Jones rejected the
>> analysis of Judge Pepper, and explained how MS Code 23-15-575 had been
>> interpreted by the Mississippi Attorney General:
>> In June 2003, the Mississippi State Democratic Party and Mississippi
>> State Democratic Party Executive Committee (collectively "MSDP") asked the
>> state attorney general ("AG") how the party could enforce § 23-15-575,
>> which it had not done before. The MSDP wanted to curtail alleged "party
>> raiding" and crossover voting "whereby voters in sympathy with one party
>> designate themselves as voters of another party so as to influence or
>> determine the results of the other party's primary."2 This practice is
>> forbidden by the plain language of § 23-15-575. The AG responded with an
>> opinion ("Cole Opinion") stating that a party may challenge a voter in a
>> primary only in accordance with Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-579, which outlines
>> strict procedures for challenging a voter. The AG stated further that a
>> voter may be challenged only for the reasons listed in Miss.Code Ann. §
>> 23-15-571.3 See 2003 WL 21962318 (Miss. A.G. Op. No. 2003-0316 July 21,
>> 2003). According to the AG:
>>       [W]e find nothing that would allow a poll worker, poll watcher or
>> another voter to ask a voter if he or she intends to support the nominees
>> of the party once the voter presents himself or herself to vote. Challenges
>> may be made ... for the reason that the voter does not intend to support the
>> nominees of the party per Section 23-15-575 ...
>>         If a challenge of a voter is properly initiated in strict
>> accordance with Section 23-15-579 and the voter then openly declares that
>> he or she does not intend to support the nominees of the party, the poll
>> workers could find the challenge to be well taken and mark the ballot
>> "challenged" or "rejected" consistent with the provisions of said statute.
>> On the other hand, if the voter openly declares his or her intent to
>> support the nominees, then a challenge is not proper under Section
>> 23-15-575.
>> ....
>>       [W]e have previously opined that absent an obvious factual
>> situation such as an independent candidate attempting to vote in a party's
>> primary, the stated intent of the voter is controlling.... No past action by
>> a voter can form the basis of a valid challenge under Section
>> 23-15-571(3)(g) and Section 23-15-575.
>> Id.
>> (FN 3 read: 3
>> Section 23-15-571 states that "[a] person offering to vote may be
>> challenged upon the following grounds":
>> (a) That he is not a registered voter in the precinct;
>> (b) That he is not the registered voter under whose name he has applied
>> to vote;
>> (c) That he has already voted in the election;
>> (d) That he is not a resident in the precinct where he is registered;
>> (e) That he has illegally registered to vote;
>> (f) That he has removed his ballot from the polling place; or
>> (g) That he is otherwise disqualified by law.)
>> In other words, the state law has been interpreted by the state attorney
>> general so that poll workers may not challenge a voter, despite that voters
>> past history of voting for Democrats unless the voter comes in and "openly
>> declares that he or she does not intend to support the nominees of the
>> party."
>> It sure seems that the Breitbart story should have mentioned the appeal,
>> and vacating of Judge Pepper's opinion, as well as the AG opinion.
>>
>> Posted in political parties, primaries
>> "Unregulated, Outside Spending by Koch-Related Group Plagues Local
>> Elections, Public Citizen Report Finds"
>> Posted on June 19, 2014 7:46 am by Rick Hasen
>> Press release: "Unregulated, undisclosed spending made possible by the
>> U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election
>> Commission has left local communities defenseless against big money
>> national organizations intent on interfering with their elections,
>> according to a report released today by Public Citizen."
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance
>> Three-Judge Court Unanimously Dismisses Partisan Gerrymandering Claim
>> Against Texas 2013 Redistricting
>> Posted on June 19, 2014 7:43 am by Rick Hasen
>> You can find the order here.
>>
>> Posted in redistricting
>> "Campaign-Finance Reform Has to Be Cross-Partisan"
>> Posted on June 19, 2014 7:27 am by Rick Hasen
>> Lessig in the Atlantic.
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance
>> "The Limits of 'The New Soft Money'"
>> Posted on June 19, 2014 7:04 am by Rick Hasen
>> Bauer on the Tokaji-Strause report.
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance
>> Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee [Corrected] Votes 5-4 in Favor of
>> Campaign Finance Amendment
>> Posted on June 19, 2014 6:50 am by Rick Hasen
>> So reports Peter Overby.
>> [This post has been corrected and bumped to the top.]
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance
>> --
>> Rick Hasen
>> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>> UC Irvine School of Law
>> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>> 949.824.3072 - office
>> 949.824.0495 - fax
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>> http://electionlawblog.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140619/8d4d83b8/attachment.html>