Investigation of Scott Walker’s Fundraising Could End Up at the Supreme Court

A Walker-allied group says it was the target of a political witch hunt, and it wants the high court to intervene.

Wisconsin Governor and exploratory GOP presidential hopeful Scott Walker talks to the media after speaking at the Freedom Summit on May 9, 2015 in Greenville, South Carolina.
National Journal
May 12, 2015, 4:01 p.m.

A controversial investigation into Scott Walker’s fundraising could land at the Supreme Court—just in time for the Republican presidential primaries.

The justices are scheduled to discuss Thursday whether they should hear a lawsuit that involves the long, politically charged investigation into Walker’s coordination with outside groups during his recall campaigns.

One of Walker’s closest allies in the recall fight—the Wisconsin Club for Growth—is asking the high court to take the case. The group says it was unfairly targeted by an “intrusive, harassing, and damaging criminal investigation in retaliation for [its] First Amendment-protected advocacy.”

The high court has already wrapped up oral argument for its current term. So if it does decide to take the Club’s case, arguments and a decision would come sometime in the next term, which begins in October.

“If the Supreme Court takes it, I think it would probably take it because of the packaging of the case as prosecutors on a political witch hunt targeting conservatives,” said Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and the author of the Election Law Blog.

The lawsuit stems from an investigation into whether Walker’s campaign illegally coordinated with independent political groups, including the Wisconsin Club for Growth, as he fought recall campaigns in 2011 and 2012. The recall efforts were spurred by Walker’s aggressive moves to strip public-sector unions of their bargaining power—a campaign the state’s Club for Growth strongly supported.

Prosecutors in Milwaukee County opened a secret investigation in 2012 into possible coordination between Walker’s campaign and outside groups supporting him. The probe expanded to additional counties in 2013.

Prosecutors say the investigation was simply an inquiry into potential violations of state campaign-finance law. Documents from the investigation reportedly showed Walker’s campaign aides encouraging supporters to donate to the Wisconsin Club for Growth during the recall campaign, saying the governor “wants all the issue advocacy efforts run thru one group to ensure correct messaging.”

Wisconsin Club for Growth, however, describes the inquiry as a partisan crusade to intimidate Walker’s allies and scare others away from donating to or working with them.

“Deprived of funds, cut off from its vendors and allies, and unsure even of what law it was alleged to have violated, the Club was paralyzed, as were all other major conservative advocacy groups in Wisconsin,” it said in its brief urging the Supreme Court to take the case.

Hasen says those claims appear overstated, and that the case’s political weight is greater than its ability to weaken laws against campaign coordination. “I see this case as having a lot of rhetorical and symbolic value, but I don’t see it as, one way or the other, making major changes in campaign-finance law,” he said.

Neither Walker nor his campaign are parties in the lawsuit, and an attorney for the prosecutors has said Walker himself was not a target of the investigation.

Wisconsin Club for Growth is challenging the investigation in both state and federal courts. The state Supreme Court is expected to rule this summer on whether the probe was on the up-and-up, and a federal appeals court said last year that the federal judiciary should stay out of the matter until then.

“Principles of equity, comity, and federalism counsel against a federal role here,” a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said.

The prosecutors who began the investigation also want the U.S. Supreme Court to hold off.

“Whether the “¦ proceedings are valid under Wisconsin law is a question unique to Wisconsin and it is through Wisconsin state courts that the question should first be resolved,” they said in their brief urging the court to leave the 7th Circuit’s ruling alone.

And there’s certainly a chance the Supreme Court will decide to stay out of the issue—or to wait and see what comes out of the state Supreme Court. The justices were initially slated to discuss the case in early April, but have postponed their deliberations twice. And there’s no way to know what those delays mean, Hasen said.

“I think there is a possibility that the Court takes it, though it could be that what the Wisconsin Supreme Court decides to do moots things,” he said.

What We're Following See More »
AVOIDS SHUTDOWN WITH A FEW HOURS TO SPARE
Trump Signs Border Deal
1 weeks ago
THE LATEST

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Source:
REDIRECTS $8 BILLION
Trump Declares National Emergency
1 weeks ago
THE DETAILS

"President Donald Trump on Friday declared a state of emergency on the southern border and immediately direct $8 billion to construct or repair as many as 234 miles of a border barrier. The move — which is sure to invite vigorous legal challenges from activists and government officials — comes after Trump failed to get the $5.7 billion he was seeking from lawmakers. Instead, Trump agreed to sign a deal that included just $1.375 for border security."

Source:
COULD SOW DIVISION AMONG REPUBLICANS
House Will Condemn Emergency Declaration
1 weeks ago
THE DETAILS

"House Democrats are gearing up to pass a joint resolution disapproving of President Trump’s emergency declaration to build his U.S.-Mexico border wall, a move that will force Senate Republicans to vote on a contentious issue that divides their party. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Thursday evening in an interview with The Washington Post that the House would take up the resolution in the coming days or weeks. The measure is expected to easily clear the Democratic-led House, and because it would be privileged, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would be forced to put the resolution to a vote that he could lose."

Source:
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DRUG FORFEITURE FUND
Where Will the Emergency Money Come From?
1 weeks ago
THE DETAILS

"ABC News has learned the president plans to announce on Friday his intention to spend about $8 billion on the border wall with a mix of spending from Congressional appropriations approved Thursday night, executive action and an emergency declaration. A senior White House official familiar with the plan told ABC News that $1.375 billion would come from the spending bill Congress passed Thursday; $600 million would come from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion would come from the Pentagon's drug interdiction program; and through an emergency declaration: $3.5 billion from the Pentagon's military construction budget."

Source:
TRUMP SAYS HE WILL SIGN
House Passes Funding Deal
1 weeks ago
THE DETAILS

"The House passed a massive border and budget bill that would avert a shutdown and keep the government funded through the end of September. The Senate passed the measure earlier Thursday. The bill provides $1.375 billion for fences, far short of the $5.7 billion President Trump had demanded to fund steel walls. But the president says he will sign the legislation, and instead seek to fund his border wall by declaring a national emergency."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login