[EL] “The Lives of Others” in Wisconsin

[Steve Klein]

In his piece, Bruce Murphy writes, among lots of words written, I suspect,
in hope that no one will actually read the Wisconsin DOJ report
<https://pillaroflaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Report-of-the-Attorney-General-Signed-UNSEALED.pdf>
on
the John Doe II investigation:

“Schimel instead leaps to the bizarre conclusion that the GAB had launched
> a third Doe probe.”

The report reveals the breadth of documents seized, reviewed and stored
(read: strewn about various parts of the office) by the GAB, even after
they were required to be destroyed. This included hundreds of thousands of
citizens' e-mails, gchats, etc. that were of no relation to political
campaigns.

Such permissive investigative authority is not only an affront to free
speech, but to the Fourth Amendment. Comparisons to the Stasi are not
hyperbole.

But here, it’s perhaps best to remember Willie Stark: “There’s always
something.” Let the government arbitrarily monitor your life, and they will
probably find something new to “investigate.” Hence, "John Doe III."

And this stems from having a limitless coordination standard. Nothing to
see there, either, Murphy writes:

“But during the entire time the Doe probe was conducted, the law in
> Wisconsin as it was then understood (and as it continues to be interpreted
> in most states in America) was that such collusion was illegal.”


Heh. Understood? I believe it is the dearth of coordination
enforcement--and, thus, judicial review--that, in part, led to this farce.
It was one Wisconsin opinion from the late 1990s that had the “experts”
nodding knowingly that they had the authority to regulate coordinated issue
advocacy. They might have paused to read some of the few other cases that
address coordination. I frequently recommend *FEC v. Christian Coalition
<https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/52/45/2522449/>*,
one of the few careful, comprehensive opinions on coordination that is
reflected in the FEC’s current, very precise (and, thus, much maligned by
certain experts) coordination regulations.

But hey, righteous zeal is a fine substitute for legal acumen. From the
report itself:

When ADA Robles questioned Falk on a point of campaign finance law, Falk
> told Robles, “I am not engaging in this anymore. We are the experts on
> campaign finance laws. It is clear that your office has some difficulties
> understanding and applying it correctly.”


Which reform group or law school is this guy going to land at?



>
> *“Brad Schimel Strikes Out Again” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96382>*Posted
> on December 13, 2017 7:41 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96382> by
> *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>The latest
> <https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2017/12/12/murphys-law-brad-schimel-strikes-out-again/> on
> Wisconsin’s never ending John Doe controversy.
> [image: hare]
>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D96382&title=%E2%80%9CBrad%20Schimel%20Strikes%20Out%20Again%E2%80%9D>Posted
> in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


-- 
Steve Klein
Attorney*
https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenrklein

**Licensed to practice law in Illinois and Michigan*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20171213/0be580f2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20171213/0be580f2/attachment.png>