88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
BY ALICE OLLSTEIN POSTED ON MAY 18, 2015 AT 12:43 PM
CREDIT: AP IMAGES
The US Supreme Court rejected a petition Monday morning from conservative groups seeking to throw out a multi-year probe into Scott Walker’s 2012 recall campaign. The criminal investigation had previously found some evidence that Walker’s campaign illegally coordinated with Club for Growth and other Republican organizations.
These groups have called the investigation an infringement on their constitutional right to free speech and free association.
Most of the facts of the case remained secret until last week, when The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and four other journalism groups won a lengthy battle for access to a trove of documents. These papers reveal, among other things, that Walker was planning to argue that his coordination with Club for Growth was not illegal because it happened before he was an officially-declared candidate, even though he was actively fighting voters’ attempt to recall him from office.
Before the so-called John Doe investigation was halted by lower court, it resulted in the conviction of several of Walker’s staffers for crimes committed while they worked for him, ranging from corruption to embezzlement to working on campaign activities while on the clock at a government job. Though Walker himself was never charged with a crime, internal emails suggest he was involved in or at least aware of the illegal coordination with outside groups.
The case now rests in the hands of the state Supreme Court, which is expected to rule by the end of June on whether the investigation can go forward or will permanently end. Yet that court, whose members are elected by voters, is now coming under criticism for having serious conflicts of interest. The four conservative members of the courtbenefitted from millions of dollars of outside spending from Club for Growth and the other groups under investigation to win their own seats, leading the Republican head prosecutor to call on them to recuse themselves from the case.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has been through a massive upheaval during Walker’s time in office, one that has tilted the court in his favor. Not only have a series ofexpensive and controversial campaigns elected some of the court’s most conservative members, a constitutional amendment was passed to end the hundred-plus-year-old tradition of allowing the court’s most senior member to serve as Chief Justice. Not coincidentally, the Chief Justice ousted in early May, Shirley Abrahamson, was one of the most progressive. She and the court’s other progressive female justice have also both accused their conservative male colleague of inappropriate behavior, including calling them “bytch” and putting his hands around her neck in a threatening manner.
As the court prepares to consider the fate of the Scott Walker John Doe probe, Abrahamson is also challenging the state’s new law in federal court and fighting to get her Chief Justice seat back.
The new Chief Justice, Patience Roggensack, has written that Justices on her court don’t need to recuse themselves from a case even if there is a real or perceived conflict of interest — including a campaign donation from one of the lawyers or parties before the court.
Tags:
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2...s-next-criminal-probe-scott-walkers-campaign/
CREDIT: AP IMAGES
The US Supreme Court rejected a petition Monday morning from conservative groups seeking to throw out a multi-year probe into Scott Walker’s 2012 recall campaign. The criminal investigation had previously found some evidence that Walker’s campaign illegally coordinated with Club for Growth and other Republican organizations.
These groups have called the investigation an infringement on their constitutional right to free speech and free association.
Most of the facts of the case remained secret until last week, when The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and four other journalism groups won a lengthy battle for access to a trove of documents. These papers reveal, among other things, that Walker was planning to argue that his coordination with Club for Growth was not illegal because it happened before he was an officially-declared candidate, even though he was actively fighting voters’ attempt to recall him from office.
Before the so-called John Doe investigation was halted by lower court, it resulted in the conviction of several of Walker’s staffers for crimes committed while they worked for him, ranging from corruption to embezzlement to working on campaign activities while on the clock at a government job. Though Walker himself was never charged with a crime, internal emails suggest he was involved in or at least aware of the illegal coordination with outside groups.
The case now rests in the hands of the state Supreme Court, which is expected to rule by the end of June on whether the investigation can go forward or will permanently end. Yet that court, whose members are elected by voters, is now coming under criticism for having serious conflicts of interest. The four conservative members of the courtbenefitted from millions of dollars of outside spending from Club for Growth and the other groups under investigation to win their own seats, leading the Republican head prosecutor to call on them to recuse themselves from the case.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has been through a massive upheaval during Walker’s time in office, one that has tilted the court in his favor. Not only have a series ofexpensive and controversial campaigns elected some of the court’s most conservative members, a constitutional amendment was passed to end the hundred-plus-year-old tradition of allowing the court’s most senior member to serve as Chief Justice. Not coincidentally, the Chief Justice ousted in early May, Shirley Abrahamson, was one of the most progressive. She and the court’s other progressive female justice have also both accused their conservative male colleague of inappropriate behavior, including calling them “bytch” and putting his hands around her neck in a threatening manner.
As the court prepares to consider the fate of the Scott Walker John Doe probe, Abrahamson is also challenging the state’s new law in federal court and fighting to get her Chief Justice seat back.
The new Chief Justice, Patience Roggensack, has written that Justices on her court don’t need to recuse themselves from a case even if there is a real or perceived conflict of interest — including a campaign donation from one of the lawyers or parties before the court.
Tags:
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2...s-next-criminal-probe-scott-walkers-campaign/