A Federal Judge Just Called an End to Scott Walker’s Recall Probe

It’s the latest example of Wisconsin politics playing out in the courts.

National Journal
May 7, 2014, 6:52 a.m.

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.

What We're Following See More »
SAYS CANNOT BE HELD IN HOUSE CHAMBER WITH GOVERNMENT CLOSED
Pelosi Won't Back Down on SOTU
9 hours ago
THE LATEST
SAYS HE WAS THREATENED BY TRUMP
Cohen Postpones Testimony
10 hours ago
THE LATEST
HE IS PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
Trump Recognizes Guaido as Interim Venezuelan President
10 hours ago
THE LATEST
ALSO STEPS DOWN FROM JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE
Sheila Jackson-Lee Resigns as CBC Foundation Chair
11 hours ago
THE DETAILS
STANDOFF WITH PELOSI ON TUESDAY?
Trump Says He's Delivering SOTU as Planned
11 hours ago
THE LATEST
×
×

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