May 2, 2016

Rick Hasen at Election Law Blog tries to read the cert. petition in the Wisconsin John Doe case, but finds it hard because of redactions (even in parts of the questions presented).

But he finds what he calls "two meaty issues":
First, it seems pretty clear to me that the Wisconsin Supreme Court mangled U.S. constitutional campaign finance law to let elected officials like Gov. Scott Walker coordinate with outside groups on an unlimited basis with groups taking unlimited campaign contributions from whatever source so long as the outside groups avoid express words of advocacy like vote for or vote against. The second issue is whether those Justices on the WI Supreme Court who benefitted from the outside spending by the very groups before the court should have recused themselves from hearing the case. The number of redactions involving the actions of controversial state Supreme Court Justice David Prosser are remarkable in and of themselves.
But Hasen doesn't think the Court is likely to take the case — especially in its current 4-4 condition.

18 comments:

David said...

Turns out he's a hack. Surprise!

MikeR said...

"although while Justice Scalia was still on the Court I would be very wary of bringing any campaign finance case to the Supreme Court lest the Supreme Court actually move in the direction of even further deregulation, taking a bad ruling and making it national." No point in reading anything else this person is saying; I'm not interested in helping partisan politicians on the other side.

Michael K said...

"coordinate with outside groups on an unlimited basis "

So, avoiding advocacy is not enough. You can't have people think alike ?

Perhaps people should be obliged to vote for those they disagree with.

Big Mike said...

First, it seems pretty clear to me that the Wisconsin Supreme Court mangled U.S. constitutional campaign finance law to let elected officials like Gov. Scott Walker coordinate with outside groups on an unlimited basis with groups taking unlimited campaign contributions from whatever source so long as the outside groups avoid express words of advocacy like vote for or vote against.

Assumes facts not in evidence. After years of Gestapo-like tactics trying to find evidence of coordination, which to many people in the Wisconsin Democrat party means only that they haven't terrorized and humiliated enough people -- not that there is no evidence because there never was any such coordination.

Your Wisconsin lefties are kind of a piece of work, aren't they Professor?

Chuck said...

I want it to be very clear that while Rick Hasen is widely respected, he is not a political neutral on campaign finance or anything else.

My preferred election law experts are Bradley Smith of Capital University (and former FEC commissioner), Hans von Spakovsky of Heritage (another former FEC commissioner) and appellate litigator David Rivkin of Baker Hostetler (who has been involved as counsel or as an amicus in most of the big cases for the last ten years).

They aren't political neutrals either. ;-)

David Begley said...

As a Nebraskan, I find judicial elections to be astounding. We have the Missouri plan in Nebraska. Judges are appointed by the Governor and then stand for retention in elections. No campaign spending. Maybe five judges not retained state-wide in 50 years.

Chuck said...

While all of the professed Althouse conservatives assail the Left's "coordination" attack on the Walker and the Wisconsin Club for Growth, remember: Donald Trump was encouraging the same attack on the Cruz-supporting PAC in the Utah primary.

It wasn't much of a serious attack, of course. Only because Trump isn't a serious election law expert, or a serious anything-else. And because he is so unserious, Trump won't ever have any enforcement powers. It is just another illustration of Trump's lack of knowledge and information on an issue of importance to conservatives.

narciso said...

except for the soros archipelago, all they do is coordinate, it was don sherwood's pac that was financing mair of baku's rants,

sean said...

He is basing his conclusion that the Wisconsin Supreme Court "mangled" the law on the petition of the litigants who oppose the Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion? A petition which doesn't lead the reader to think that the court below got the law wrong is a pretty bad petition. That's why it's customary to read both sides before forming any conclusions, assuming that you haven't made up your mind ab initio.

JAORE said...

I don't pretend to know the law. But even I can smell the foul stench of that foregone conclusion.

SteveR said...

"Garage Mahal call your talking points provider"

BN said...

I'm just glad people think we still have the rule of law.

There's still hope. Keep it alive!

BN said...

Plus, it's cute. It makes me smile.

BN said...

Chuck: "It is just another illustration of Trump's lack of knowledge and information on an issue of importance to conservatives."

Or... any issue of importance at all, for that matter.

And just to throw this in here because i don't want to find a place more apropos: I don't want some strong man to "make America great again." I want the people of America to decide to make America free again. That's all we need. We'll do the great part ourselves if you'll give us that.

BN said...

But if the people of America decide they don't want to be free, but would rather be taken care of, well, that's what we get.

Rusty said...

"And just to throw this in here because i don't want to find a place more apropos: I don't want some strong man to "make America great again."

We've been living under a "strongman" for the last seven and a half years. Just not a conservative one. Not that Trump is a conservative, but hey, let's give him a shot. At least he's not advocating organizing brigades of inner city youths to , 'help the police" like Obama did.

Chuck said...

Rusty I think the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board wrote this for you. Maybe the would have emailed it to you if they knew your address. I think we could substitute "terrorism" with "health care," or "economic growth." And the substance would be the same.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-obama-trump-dialectic-1449621957

Rusty said...

Chuck said...
Rusty I think the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board wrote this for you.

Nope. I do shit like that all on my own.
But thank you for putting me up there with such good company.