In short, the special prosecutor completely ignores the command that, when seeking to regulate issue advocacy groups, such regulation must be done with “narrow specificity”. “I don’t get too up or too down”. “I’m pretty even-keeled in all this”.
Advertisement
The weird series of events, which would make an excellent Lifetime movie, honestly, culminated in a ruling this morning from the Wisconsin Supreme Court who were, shall we say, not very kind to the law enforcement and local government officials who concocted the elaborate intimidation scheme. Here’s his take on border security, tax reform and same-sex marriage, in his own words.
“It is time to move past this unwarranted investigation that has cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars”, said Ashlee Strong, Walker campaign spokeswoman. Walker’s recall election, along with those faced by other prominent Republicans, attracted the attention of wealthy Republicans nationwide. According to Wisconsin laws political money is not a reason to force justices to step aside.
Tara Malloy of the Campaign Legal Center called the ruling “an outrageous act of judicial activism” and said at least two of the justices who joined the majority should have recused themselves from the case because of the support they received from some of the groups under investigation.
The case is In the Matter of John Doe Proceeding – State of Wisconsin ex rel. Three Unnamed Petitioners v. the Honorable Gregory Peterson. The John Doe probe, which is named thusly because there is no one specific suspect in mind, was to find evidence of collusion between issue advocacy groups and the Walker campaign.
John Chisholm, the Milwaukee County district attorney and a Democrat, began the investigation but was later joined by other county prosecutors, from both political parties.
Two justices on the seven-member court dissented from key elements of the ruling and one did not participate. Prosecutors had been operating under the argument that those efforts were illegal, but the court held a position that the type of advocacy done by the groups did not violate campaign finance laws. And they weren’t subtle about their feelings, either.
The special prosecutor has disregarded the vital principle that in our nation and our state political speech is a fundamental right and is afforded the highest level of protection. Republicans, who are the political majority now in Wisconsin, requested on various occasions that such procedure should not be conducted on politicians, who shouldn’t be prohibited from making public statements during the investigation.
“We invalidate the special prosecutor’s theory of the case, and we grant the relief requested by the Unnamed Movants”, Gableman wrote. Problems with this investigation are what led to the state Supreme Court case. So we are pleased.
> Matt Rothschild, the executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign: “It is not only regrettable; it is downright unsafe”.
But Wisconsin’s Supreme Court ruled 4-2 Thursday that the investigation was “overly broad” and infringed on First Amendment rights of free speech.
She said the majority’s position amounts to “anything goes” in campaigns and denies the people of Wisconsin the opportunity to see whether the investigation’s targets were guilty of violating the law.
The decision is also a major victory for Eric O’Keefe’s group, Wisconsin Club for Growth.
Howard Schweber, an associate professor of political science and legal studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said prosecutors could seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court, possibly arguing bias.
Advertisement
Unless it is successfully appealed, the decision could conceivably now lead to unlimited coordination between outside spending groups with candidate committees and effectively render contribution limits meaningless in Wisconsin.
