[EL] What's indensible in Wisconsin
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Sat Feb 6 10:28:53 PST 2016
WARNING: CORRUPTION AND DARK MONEY ALERT
There is a couple of other interesting things about Rick and Trevor's
position here:
(1) They both spend a lot of time claining "corruption" at about every
turn, especially flowing from unlimited contributions to public officials,
but then here are outraged that the Wisconsin Supreme Court prevented a
private interest from spending unlimited funds as a contribution to public
officials through pro bono legal help. I have some idea what it costs to bring
and handle a case in the Supreme Court and it can be in 7 figures,
especially when one uses big law firms, like Reed Smith. But Rick and Trevor have
their blinders on here. (To be clear, I don't see this as "corruption" at
all, but Rick and Trevor seem to see "corruption" everywhere, even when --
especially when -- I don't.)
(2) When not railing against unlimited contributions, they are spooked by
"dark money." Well, who is funding this very expensive pro bono legal
representation of these public officials? Maybe no one, but Rick and Trevor
just forgot to ask, I guess. If this comes back to the Wisc Supreme Court,
maybe they should ask.
By the way, this firm was involved in one campaign finance case I can
find. This is what they say about it on their website:
American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, 132 S. Ct. 2490 (2012). Amicus
brief on behalf of twenty-two States and the District of Columbia opposing
the petition for certiorari review of the Montana Supreme Court’s decision
upholding the State’s ban on corporate expenditures for express political
advocacy.
I handled this case in the Supreme Court and the Court granted cert and
summarily reversed the Montana Supreme Court, striking down Montana's ban on
corporate independent expenditures. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 2/6/2016 12:37:31 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
BSmith at law.capital.edu writes:
The judges are not seeking to "avoid review of their decisions." They are
policing abuse of power by other officials and the Bad Government private
folks allied with them, and protecting the rights of the citizens of
Wisconsin.
The district attorneys are free to pursue review if they think it is a
good use of government resources, but I doubt they really think that, or
believe they can justify it to the electorate come re-election time. It is a
good way to continue harassing their political opponents, and that's their
likely aim.
It's a nice bootstrapping effort, though - the Bad Government community
casts wildly broad allegations based on highly contestable legal theories; it
then announces that anyone who rules against them must be biased and have
to recuse themselves; it then claims that anybody who refuses to recuse on
that basis must be judged by someone else, who of course, is considered
biased unless likely to order that recusal is proper.
We have now reached the point where failing to do the bidding of reformers
is itself, per the reformers, proof of corruption. The circle is closed.
Shameless.
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
614.236.6317
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
____________________________________
From: Trevor Potter [tpotter at capdale.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2016 12:15 PM
To: Smith, Brad
Cc: Rick Hasen; law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] What's indensible in Wisconsin
So why is it ever " not only defensible but correct" for judges to seek to
avoid review of their decisions, especially when they have been accused of
a conflict of interest and asked to to recuse themselves , and have failed
to do so?
It does not matter what the case is about -- anyone presented with the
above facts would think that the integrity of our judiciary required that the
judges facilitate review of their actions. One would think they might do so
in order to vindicate their conduct and decisions, but certainly it is in
the interest of the judicial system that review occur. To take actions that
are alleged to violate conflict of interest rules and then do everything in
their power to keep the facts secret and frustrate review by a higher
court, in a very politically sensitive and controversial case, and over the
objections of other justices on the court, does not seem in accord with the
fundamental values and principles of the US legal system.
Trevor Potter
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 6, 2016, at 12:59 PM, Smith, Brad
<BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>> wrote:
Wisconsin Supreme Court is not only totally defensible, it is correct.
What's been indefensible in all this is the disregard of the reform community
for basic norms of due process, abuse of government power, and basic norms
of free speech and democratic government. The Bad Government crowd is
willing to tolerate most any abuse of government and government power in its
quest to rid us of the scourge of money in politics--at least when that money
runs counter to their views and preferred policies.
Just to set a competing marker down.
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
614.236.6317
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx<http://law.capital.edu/facul
ty/bios/bsmith.aspx>
________________________________
From:
law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
[law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] on behalf of
Rick Hasen [rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>]
Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2016 11:04 AM
To: law-election at UCI.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] more news 2/6/16
North Carolina Will Appeal Racial Gerrymandering Case Involving
Congressional Districts<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79671>
Posted on February 6, 2016 7:56 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79671> by
Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
See
here.<http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article58756583.html>
I expect the state’s lawyers are spending the weekend drafting an
emergency motion to SCOTUS to stay this ruling for the March election, given that
absentee ballots are already out.<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79650> I
would not at all be surprised to see a stay even if, as seems fairly likely,
this ruling is ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court for future
elections.
And of course, North Carolina could potentially moot this case by drawing
new districts that are political, but not arguably racial, gerrymanders.
<share_save_171_16.png><https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felec
tionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79671&title=North%20Carolina%20Will%20Appeal%20Raci
al%20Gerrymandering%20Case%20Involving%20Congressional%20Districts&descripti
on=>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme
Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Who’s funding this pro-Ted Cruz super PAC?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79669>
Posted on February 6, 2016 7:50 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79669> by
Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Teddy
Schleifer<http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/06/politics/ted-cruz-super-pac/index.html> for CNN:
A super PAC spending millions of dollars to bash Ted Cruz’s Republican
rivals is shielding the names of many of its top donors and strategists,
accepting and directing donations through a particularly high number of
hard-to-trace companies, new documents reveal.
<share_save_171_16.png><https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felec
tionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79669&title=%26%238220%3BWho%26%238217%3Bs%20fundin
g%20this%20pro-Ted%20Cruz%20super%20PAC%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Indefensible: WI Supreme Court Won’t Allow Prosecutors to Get Outside PRO
BONO Help in Case Against WI Supreme
Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79667>
Posted on February 6, 2016 7:46 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79667> by
Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
So there’s a potential claim that WI Supreme Court justices should have
recused themselves from deciding the John Doe case, given that they
themselves benefitted from campaign financing by the same groups in the case. The
district attorneys asked for outside help on those cases, from an outside law
firm specializing in SCOTUS appeals which would work pro bono (for free).
And today the Wisconsin Supreme Court, itself the target of the appeal,
said
no<http://www.wpr.org/sites/default/files/2013AP2504%20and%202014AP296%20and%202014AP417%20%282-5-16%29.pdf> (over Justice Abrahamson’s dissent).
Heck, the Justices won’t even let an outside printing company print
redacted portions of the John Doe record for the Supreme Court appeal.
This is totally indefensible.
Howard rounds up the
stories.<http://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/020616.html#065409>
<share_save_171_16.png><https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felec
tionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79667&title=Indefensible%3A%20WI%20Supreme%20Court%
20Won%26%238217%3Bt%20Allow%20Prosecutors%20to%20Get%20Outside%20PRO%20BONO%
20Help%20in%20Case%20Against%20WI%20Supreme%20Court&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“WH response to petition offends campaign finance advocates”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79665>
Posted on February 6, 2016 7:38 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79665> by
Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The
Hill<http://thehill.com/regulation/finance/268433-campaign-finance-reform-advocates-offended-by-wh-response-to-petition>:
Activists say they are offended by the White House’s response Friday to a
petition signed by more than 117,000 people demanding that federal
contractors be required to disclose political spending.
The petition, generated on the White House We the People petition page,
called for President Obama to take action now or be remembered as the
president whose inaction aided the rise of secret money in politics. But the White
House, which had 60 days to respond, only reiterated remarks from the
president’s last State of the Union address.
“We have to reduce the influence of money in our politics, so that a
handful of families and hidden interests can’t bankroll our elections — and
if our existing approach to campaign finance can’t pass muster in the
courts, we need to work together to find a real solution,” the We the People
Team wrote, quoting Obama.
Rootstrikers, an activist organization fighting money in politics, called
the response “offensive” and “wholly unsatisfactory.”
<share_save_171_16.png><https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felec
tionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79665&title=%26%238220%3BWH%20response%20to%20petit
ion%20offends%20campaign%20finance%20advocates%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Fact Check: Clinton And Sanders On Campaign Finance”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79663>
Posted on February 6, 2016 7:34 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79663> by
Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Peter Overby
reports<http://www.npr.org/2016/02/06/465781632/fact-check-clinton-and-sanders-on-campaign-finance?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twit
ter.com&utm_medium=social> for NPR.
<share_save_171_16.png><https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felec
tionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79663&title=%26%238220%3BFact%20Check%3A%20Clinton%
20And%20Sanders%20On%20Campaign%20Finance%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Ask the Author: Richard L. Hasen”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79661>
Posted on February 6, 2016 7:32 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79661> by
Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Kate Ackley interviewed me for CQ
Weekly<http://www.cq.com/doc/weeklyreport-4830359?6&search=j8q7isAs> ($):
In his new book, “Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court,
and the Distortion of American Elections,” law professor Richard L. Hasen of
the University of California, Irvine, calls President Barack Obama a
hypocrite on political money issues and suggests controversial remedies, such as
outlawing fundraising by lobbyists, to quell what he views as
out-of-control campaign spending.
Hasen spoke to CQ’s Kate Ackley. Here’s an edited transcript
<share_save_171_16.png><https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felec
tionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79661&title=%26%238220%3BAsk%20the%20Author%3A%20Ri
chard%20L.%20Hasen%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Plutocrats
United<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>
--
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<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/<http://www.law.uci.edu/facul
ty/full-time/hasen/>
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/)
<_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/) >
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.u
ci.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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160206/00b92bf7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 116020612155002101.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 9616 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160206/00b92bf7/attachment.bin>
View list directory