[EL] Wisconsin John Doe decision

Wed May 7 15:18:03 PDT 2014

The reason that the John Doe has been viewed publicly as a partisan or
politically-motivated probe is because of selective leaks and a savvy media
strategy by the targets of the investigation. Without expecting to convince
anybody on this list, it is should be noted that:

The Special Prosecutor leading the probe, Francis Schmitz, voted for Walker
during the recall elections and was on George W. Bush's shortlist for a
U.S. attorney appointment.

Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board, which consists of retired
judges from both political parties appointed by the Governor and confirmed
by the Senate, voted *unanimously* to authorize the investigation.

The Milwaukee District Attorney who initiated the investigation, John
Chisholm, is a Democrat, but contrary to the "selective prosecution"
allegations, his office has pursued campaign finance charges against
multiple Democrats in recent years. In fact, Chisholm's office levied
a $20,000 fine for campaign finance violations against Walker's opponent in
the 2012 recall election, Tom Barrett.

Plus, despite claims that WI Club for Growth was blindsided by the
investigation, since 1999 Wisconsin's statutes had been interpreted as
barring issue ad coordination with candidates. See *Coalition for Voter
Participation v. Elections Bd.*, 231 Wis. 2d 670, 605 N.W.2d 654 (Ct. App.
1999), *review denied*, 231 Wis. 2d 377, 607 N.W.2d 293 (1999). In that
case, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that Wisconsin law can count
issue ad "expenditures that are 'coordinated' with, or made 'in cooperation
with or with the consent of a candidate'... as campaign contributions," and
green-lighted a state elections board investigation into illegal
coordination between Jon Wilcox's 1997 campaign for Supreme Court and an
independent group that sent issue ad postcards.

The 1999 probe resulted in a settlement where Wilcox's campaign manager
Mark Block (who later went on to manage Herman Cain's presidential campaign
and appear in the "smoking man" ad) was fined $15,000 and barred from
politics for three years. The elections board found that Wilcox had no
knowledge of the illegal issue ad coordination, yet he agreed to personally
pay a $10,000 fine, stating that he was ultimately responsible for the
conduct of his campaign staff.

The *Coalition for Voter Participation* decision didn't settle the question
of how issue ads are treated under Wisconsin's statues, but well in advance
of the 2012 elections there was highly-publicized precedent suggesting they
would be treated as in-kind contributions if coordinated with a candidate.

Also worth noting that when Judge Randa issued his decision deeming issue
advocacy beyond the scope of Wisconsin's campaign finance statutes,
proceedings were pending before a Wisconsin appellate court (and a motion
for an original action had been filed with the Wisconsin Supreme Court) to
resolve the question of how Wisconsin statutes treat issue ad coordination.

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org> wrote:

>  Rick’s right.  I’ll rephrase my point.
>
>
>
> Isn’t this proceeding exactly the kind of politically-tainted proceeding
> that would cause people to lose confidence in the political process?  Isn’t
> that the claimed purpose of campaign finance laws in the first instance?
> And wouldn’t publicity help ensure that these kinds of investigations are
> not undertaken for political reasons?
>
>
>
> I had thought that public oversight of the machineries of government in
> investigations of campaign finance laws would be an area where de-reg and
> pro-reg people would share an interest in public oversight and I am
> legitimately surprised that those who support increased regulation of
> political finance—and who I would think would want to have as open a system
> as possible to reassure the public that the laws cannot be manipulated for
> political gain—are not more concerned about this case and the secrecy in
> which it was undertaken.  Secret, heavy-handed investigations by
> politically-interested parties certainly gives credence to the idea that
> campaign finance laws can easily be just become a tool to conduct campaigns
> in a courtroom.
>
>
>
> (Also, please note that my snark about “sunlight” was directed (in my
> mind, at least) at Justice Brandeis himself, in that the analogy is based
> on a factually ridiculous premise.  It’s like saying “Oxygen is the best
> flame retardant.”  Sunlight is absolutely * not* the best disinfectant.
> No doctor would say, “That cut looks  infected.  Let’s get some sunlight on
> it.”  It may explain why so many people died of sepsis back then.)
>
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Rick Hasen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 07, 2014 12:09 PM
> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Wisconsin John Doe decision
>
>
>
> I think everyone needs to cool it on the snark.  We were doing very well
> discussing substance.
>
> Rather than phrase points with sarcasm, say what you mean directly.
>
>
>  On 5/7/14, 12:05 PM, Josh Orton wrote:
>
>  You're totally right - sunlight is the best disinfectant. I've made it
> my practice to always violate court orders by leaking to actual named news
> reporters instead of anonymous opinion pages.
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org> wrote:
>
> So, the targets of this investigation are at fault because they "leaked"
> information to the WSJ?
>
> But I thought "sunlight" was the best "disinfectant."
>
> I would think that "sunlight" of what appears to be a
> politically-motivated use of law enforcement in secret proceedings is
> exactly the kind of thing that should be given public scrutiny or else the
> people will lose confidence in the political process and believe that the
> government is not working in their best interest but in the best interest
> of unidentified entities with political pull.  But I guess that principle
> only applies to $25 donations to initiative campaigns and not police
> raiding someone's house in the middle of the night because they supported
> the wrong candidate.  Apparently, that can and should remain absolutely
> secret.
>
> Does anyone have a list of when sunlight is and is not the best
> disinfectant?  I mean, besides medicine and cleaning and pretty much any
> other time one might be tempted to use sunlight to disinfect anything.
>
> Bill
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Trevor Potter
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:23 AM
> To: David Keating
> Cc: Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Wisconsin John Doe decision
>
> David writes:" What happened in WI was outrageous and I hope it will get
> the attention it deserves.  Those who orchestrated this hopefully will be
> held accountable."
>
> For a moment I thought this outrage was aimed at those who set out to
> circumvent ( the Judge's word)  WI campaign finance law  by coordinating
> advertising with a candidate for public office while seeking to avoid
> contribution limits, and then leaked secret information about a law
> enforcement investigation in an attempt to circumvent that too. But I guess
> not....
>
> Trevor Potter
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On May 7, 2014, at 12:38 PM, "David Keating" <
> dkeating at campaignfreedom.org> wrote:
> >
> > What happened in WI was outrageous and I hope it will get the attention
> it deserves.  Those who orchestrated this hopefully will be held
> accountable.
>
> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> To
> ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that,
> unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this
> communication (including any
> attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used,
> for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal
> Revenue Code, or (ii)  promoting, marketing, or recommending to another
> party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
>
> This message is for the use of the intended recipient only.  It is from a
> law firm and may contain information that is privileged and confidential.
>  If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future
> distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited.  If you have
> received this communication in error, please advise us by return e-mail, or
> if you have received this communication by fax advise us by telephone and
> delete/destroy the document.
> <-->
>
>   _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> --
>
> BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 04LX6o7Qe) is spam:
> Spam:        about:blank
> Not spam:    about:blank
> Forget vote: about:blank
> ------------------------------------------------------
> END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>
> Law-election mailing list
>
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>  --
>
> 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
>
>  ------------------------------
>
>
> Spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04LX79dc6&m=46472b2f8ba9&t=20140507&c=s>
> Not spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04LX79dc6&m=46472b2f8ba9&t=20140507&c=n>
> Forget previous vote<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04LX79dc6&m=46472b2f8ba9&t=20140507&c=f>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
Brendan M Fischer
General Counsel,
The Progressive Inc | home of *The Progressive* magazine, the Center for
Media and Democracy, PRWatch.org <http://prwatch.org/>,
SourceWatch.org<http://sourcewatch.org/>
 and ALECexposed.org <http://alecexposed.org/> |
608-260-9713 | @brendan_fischer  <https://twitter.com/brendan_fischer>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140507/6e9740a0/attachment.html>