Wisconsin Supreme Court ends John Doe probe into Scott Walker's campaign

[GMDino]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/wisconsin-supreme-court-ends-john-doe-probe-into-scott-walkers-campaign-b99535414z1-315784501.html

Quote:Madison— Dealing Gov. Scott Walker a victory just as his presidential campaign gets underway, the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a sweeping decision Thursday ruled the governor's campaign and conservative groups had not violated campaign finance laws.

The ruling means the end of the investigation, which has been stalled for 18 months after a lower court judge determined no laws were violated even if Walker's campaign and the groups had worked together as prosecutors believe.

It could also reshape how campaigns are run in Wisconsin because it makes clear campaigns can work closely with outside groups, allowing more political money to flow without the names of donors being disclosed.

Also, the decision builds momentum for rewriting campaign finance laws, overhauling the state's elections and ethics agency, and limiting the ability of prosecutors to conduct John Doe probes. Republicans who control the Legislature have argued such investigations should not be conducted in political cases and targets of inquiries shouldn't be barred from speaking out publicly.

The ruling dealt with three pieces of litigation, and the justices split 4-2 on the campaign finance laws that were at the center of the probe.

Writing for the majority, Justice Michael Gableman found collaboration between issue groups and campaigns was not illegal. He ordered prosecutors to return all records they seized and destroy any copies they made of them.

"It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing," Gableman wrote.

Calling the challengers brave, Gableman wrote that their litigation gave the court "an opportunity to re-endorse its commitment to upholding the fundamental right of each and every citizen to engage in lawful political activity and to do so free from the fear of the tyrannical retribution of arbitrary or capricious governmental prosecution. Let one point be clear: our conclusion today ends this unconstitutional John Doe investigation."

In dissent, Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote that the majority had so loosened campaign finance rules that its theme song should be "Anything Goes."

"The majority opinion adopts an unprecedented and faulty interpretation of Wisconsin's campaign finance law and of the First Amendment," she wrote.

...

Francis Schmitz, the special prosecutor leading the investigation, in February asked that Gableman and Justice David Prosser step aside in the case because the groups being investigated had spent millions of dollars to help elect them.

The two justices issued terse opinions Thursday saying they would not do so, but they did not explain their rationale. Court rules say political spending on its own is not enough to force a justice off a case.

Schmitz said he was reviewing whether to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. He could ask the nation's high court to review Gableman's and Prosser's decisions to stay on the case or how the majority interpreted the First Amendment right to free speech.

"The decision represents a loss for all of the citizens of Wisconsin — independents, Democrats and Republicans alike," Schmitz said in a statement. "It defies common sense that a Wisconsin resident of average means who gives $25 to a campaign has his or her name publicly reported under the law but, according to this decision, someone who gives, for example, $100,000 to a group which closely coordinates with the same campaign can remain anonymous."

The litigation has been shrouded in an unusual amount of secrecy. Large sections of filings by prosecutors and the groups have been blacked out because the underlying investigation was conducted under the state's John Doe law, which allows prosecutors to operate in secret. The justices didn't hold oral arguments to avoid disclosing private information.

[Belsnickel]

So, just more shady political dealings. Awesome. No proof of anything, but it sure smells like something is amiss here.