[EL] What's indensible in Wisconsin

Sat Feb 6 10:34:17 PST 2016

For what it’s worth, the federal government has prohibitions against using volunteers to perform official functions. As I recall (I read a bunch of Beth Nolan’s law review articles on the subject while in the WH counsel’s office) the prohibitions were instituted to stop interested corporations from loaning employees to federal  agencies.  I think there was a to-do about steel and oil companies, but I my be wrong on that.  I ran into the prohibition when I tried to take on Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute interns who were between college and graduate school but not currently enrolled.

Is it common for DAs to have the authority to appeal cases where the AG is not on board?  

> On Feb 6, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:
> 
> 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 <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/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx><http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx <http://law.capital.edu/faculty/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%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79671&title=North%20Carolina%20Will%20Appeal%20Racial%20Gerrymandering%20Case%20Involving%20Congressional%20Districts&description=>
> 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%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79669&title=%26%238220%3BWho%26%238217%3Bs%20funding%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%2Felectionlawblog.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%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79665&title=%26%238220%3BWH%20response%20to%20petition%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=twitter.com&utm_medium=social> for NPR.
> 
> <share_save_171_16.png><https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.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%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79661&title=%26%238220%3BAsk%20the%20Author%3A%20Richard%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/faculty/full-time/hasen/><http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/ <http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/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.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election <http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
> 
> 
> <116020612155002101.png> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160206/391304be/attachment.html>