Wisconsin politics has never been so polarized. Now, those political divisions are playing out in the final frontier: the courts.
On Tuesday night, a judge ordered that a secretive investigation into the funding of Gov. Scott Walker’s recall campaign be halted. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa found that the secretive investigation violated the First Amendment rights of its targets — conservative political groups.
Some background: In 2012, Walker faced a recall election, which he survived with unprecedented support from Republican groups — and despite pro-union groups’ attempts to oust Walker. One of those Republican groups, the Wisconsin Club for Growth, was accused of illegally coordinating its campaign funds with Walker’s campaign, and a secretive “John Doe” investigation was launched. In Wisconsin, a John Doe investigation is “an independent, investigatory tool to ascertain whether a crime has been committed and if so, by whom.”
In turn, one of the group’s directors, Eric O’Keefe, sued the state attorneys involved in the probe, saying the investigation violated his First Amendment rights.
In effect, Randa’s decision says the state’s investigation against the Club for Growth is completely baseless. Randa even ordered that all materials collected in the investigation should be destroyed, and said the group did not need to cooperate with prosecutors.
This is just the latest instance of Wisconsin courts becoming a last resort for political maneuvering. Last week, a federal judge struck down Wisconsin’s controversial voter-identification law, which Walker signed into law in 2011. And the status of Walker’s most polarizing law, which banned public-sector unions from bargaining collectively, has become a judicial ping-pong match — upheld, overturned, upheld, ad nauseam.
O’Keefe’s attorney, David Rivkin, said the investigation had prevented his client’s group from raising or spending money, thus inhibiting its speech.
“We are delighted with the ruling,” Rivkin told National Journal. “We feel that it begins the process of restoring our constitutionally protected rights that had been stifled by this unconstitutional and partisan investigation, and we look forward to prevailing with a permanent injunction and damage claims.”
O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth are now suing special prosecutor Francis Schmitz, who spearheaded the John Doe investigation, along with the other attorneys who worked on the case. When reached by phone, Schmitz said he will almost certainly appeal Randa’s decision.
Schmitz’s attorney said Schmitz was only doing the job the state asked him to do.
“He has, in accordance with his duties as the special prosecutor, undertaken his responsibilities in accordance with Wisconsin law and for the protection of the integrity of Wisconsin elections,” Schmitz’s attorney, Randall D. Crocker, said in a statement to National Journal. “We will carefully review the decision of Judge Randa and address with our client his responsibilities pursuant to his appointment and his options.”
Randa has a history of defending conservative organizations’ First Amendment rights. Last August, he ruled that the Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee should not have to tap into its $50 million cemetery fund to pay for settlements with sexual-abuse victims, saying it would put a burden on the organization’s free expression of religion. His neutrality in the case was called into question when it was discovered Randa had purchased his parents’ plot in the Catholic cemetery.
In his decision, Randa cited the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which loosened campaign finance laws for political groups, in siding with O’Keefe and the Club for Growth.
“The plaintiffs have found a way to circumvent campaign finance laws, and that circumvention should not and cannot be condemned or restricted,” Randa wrote. “Instead, it should be recognized as promoting political speech, an activity that is ‘ingrained in our culture.’ “
But until Republicans and Democrats in the state can agree on which behavior is culturally acceptable, and which is not, Wisconsin’s political future will continue to be molded by judges.
- 1 Hillary Clinton Will Win the Nomination, But Then What?
- 2 Would Obama’s Paid Sick Leave Proposal Actually Work? Look to San Francisco.
- 3 Do Republicans Believe in Global Warming? Not if They’re in the Tea Party
- 4 In the Iowa caucuses, look for results that surprise you
- 5 Paul Ryan Would Be the Most Conservative House Speaker in Recent History
What We're Following See More »
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.