Wisconsin
Wall Street Journal: Secret Prosecution Games: A prosecutor and newspaper are upset about our editorials.
EditorialWe’ve reported on sealed documents because they’re news, and because secrecy has been central to John Doe abuses. In a typical grand jury, prosecutors are supposed to be muzzled but witnesses and targets can defend themselves in public. In Wisconsin’s John Doe, the targets are also muzzled, which gives prosecutors a free hand to leak and influence public perception.The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel first reported on Mr. Schmitz’s probe in 2013 in a way that put an aura of unfair suspicion on his targets. Was that story also an immaculate conception? We then reported the subpoena details of what looked like a legally dubious investigation. Our view of the law has been vindicated by Judge Peterson’s ruling, and Mr. Schmitz is now appealing.Mr. Schmitz ought to check for leaks from his own office before he complains to the court. As for our friends at the Journal Sentinel, if they want better and more diverse sources, they could stop playing stenographer for prosecutors with a political agenda.
Wisconsin Reporter: Secretive John Doe special prosecutor who fancies a good leak screams secrecy breach
By MD KittleAn attorney involved in the litigation before the Supreme Court claims Schmitz simply wants the ability to dump a bunch of information into the public domain that may be considered embarrassing to the conservative targets but has little to do with the matters before the court — a tactic Schmitz and other John Doe prosecutors have used throughout the lengthy legal process, conservative targets say.Unnamed petitioners, who are challenging the constitutional validity of an investigation that has been rejected by multiple courts, have asked that oral arguments be made available to the public, but they would like to close off the courtroom to all but the parties and their legal counsel. They ask that the proceedings be broadcast on WisconsinEye, using a 60-second delay so that if Schmitz attempts to drag out information that is off-limits under the sealing order the unauthorized release will be stopped.Their reasoning is justifiable. These are people caught up in a campaign finance investigation who have not been charged with any crimes. In fact, the John Doe special prosecutor in January 2014 quashed the probe’s subpoenas ruling that there was no probable cause that a the campaign of Gov. Scott Walker and the conservative groups committed a campaign finance crime. The Doe has been on hold ever since while the courts settle the legal disputes.
Yahoo: Secret $1.5 million donation from Wisconsin billionaire uncovered in Scott Walker dark-money probe
By Michael IsikoffJohn Menard Jr. is widely known as the richest man in Wisconsin. A tough-minded, staunchly conservative 75-year-old billionaire, he owns a highly profitable chain of hardware stores throughout the Midwest. He’s also famously publicity-shy — rarely speaking in public or giving interviews.So a little more than three years ago, when Menard wanted to back Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker — and help advance his pro-business agenda — he found the perfect way to do so without attracting any attention: He wrote more than $1.5 million in checks to a pro-Walker political advocacy group that pledged to keep its donors secret, three sources directly familiar with the transactions told Yahoo News.
AP: Wisconsin lawmakers hear advice for changing complex campaign spending, fundraising law
By Scott BauerReworking the law, known as Chapter 11, is a priority for Republicans who control the Legislature and who have been critical of the investigation into Walker and his conservative allies. Updating the law is also endorsed by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Board, which oversees state elections and enforces campaign finance laws.“Chapter 11 is a confusing mess that anybody who picks it up can’t figure out what’s going on,” said Mike Wittenwyler, a Madison attorney who represents third party groups that spend money on lobbying or other political activity both in Wisconsin and across the country.
Independent Groups
Washington Post: In 2016 campaign, the lament of the not quite rich enough
By Matea Gold and Tom HamburgerBundlers who used to carry platinum status have been downgraded, forced to temporarily watch the money race from the sidelines. They’ve been eclipsed by the uber-wealthy, who can dash off a seven-figure check to a super PAC without blinking. Who needs a bundler when you have a billionaire?Many fundraisers, once treated like royalty because of their extensive donor networks,are left pining for their lost prestige. Can they still have impact in a world where Jeb Bush asks big donors to please not give more than $1 million to his super PAC right now? Will they ever be in the inner circle again?“A couple presidential elections ago, somebody who had raised, say, $100,000 for a candidate was viewed as a fairly valuable asset,” said Washington lobbyist Kenneth Kies. “Today, that looks like peanuts. People like me are probably looking around saying, ‘How can I do anything that even registers on the Richter scale?’ ”
NY Times: Campaign Finance Reform Turns to Reward and Punishment
By Derek WillisThe impact of would-be reformers in 2014 bears that out. Mr. Lessig started Mayday, the super PAC to end super PACs, but it came up short in its biggest races. The new plan for 2016 ditches spending millions on negative advertising in favor of trying to recruit citizens to lobby incumbents to support legislation changing the fund-raising rules. Without the original idea of electing and defeating candidates, Mayday will need to refocus its supporters on a longer timetable, because the numbers aren’t there in Congress to pass proposals the group supports (and most of the support that exists comes from Democrats).Trying to change the behavior of candidates by providing incentives during the campaign is a newer tactic (Mr. Lessig said Mayday would ask donors not to give money unless candidates supported reform legislation, for example).CounterPAC is something like the first version of Mayday, but with a blunter approach. Funded mostly by Jim Greer, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, the super PAC has no interest in legislation and cares mainly about eliminating the presence of undisclosed money in elections. In 2014, it picked a House race in West Virginia, where Nick Rahall, the Democratic incumbent, was ousted by Evan Jenkins, a Republican state senator. CounterPAC contacted both candidates, asking if they would sign a pledge calling for groups spending undisclosed money to avoid the race (the catch being that if a candidate signed and, say, a 501c4 group spent money on his behalf, the candidate would also agree to donate a similar amount to charity). To encourage participation, CounterPAC promised to spend money against whichever candidate did not sign, regardless of party.
Kochs
NY Times: Science Museums Urged to Cut Ties With Kochs
By John SchwartzThe letter does not mention specific companies, but it does name David H. Koch, who sits on the boards of the American Museum of Natural History in New York and the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History and has given tens of millions of dollars to those institutions.Koch Industries is a privately held corporation with subsidiaries in energy and other industries. Mr. Koch and his family have funded conservative causes, including scientists and organizations that contest the role of humans in climate change.Public records show that many fossil-fuel companies have made similar contributions to such organizations and scientists over the years.
Disclosure
The Kansas City Star: In lawsuit, ACLU says the First Amendment protects anonymous political speech
By Dave Helling
The group is representing “John Doe” — a businessman in Ferguson, Mo., who wants to publish material about the city’s upcoming municipal elections.Missouri law says campaign communications must include the name and address of the sponsor. But the businessman says he’s afraid of retribution if he identifies himself, so he wants to provide the material anonymously.The ACLU’s lawsuit says requiring a name and address on political communications violates the First Amendment.“From the founding of our nation, anonymous speech has played an important role in political debate,” ACLU attorney Tony Rothert said in a statement.The members of the Missouri Ethics Commission are the defendants in the case. The commission staff did not respond to a request for comment.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Politico: How 2016ers Are Breaking the Law and Getting Away With It
By Paul S. Ryan
Why do Bush, Clinton and nearly every other prospective 2016 candidate refuse to acknowledge that they are even “testing the waters” of a presidential campaign? Because money spent to test the waters of a federal campaign must be raised under the $2,700 candidate contribution limit — and nearly every prospective candidate is raising funds outside the limit, sometimes even far outside that limit.So why is the press allowing them to get away with this apparent fiction? As reporters cover the daily activities of these nascent presidential campaigns, they’re ignoring what should be a major story. Any prospective presidential candidate who’s paying for testing-the-waters activities with funds raised outside the $2,700 per donor candidate limit is violating federal law. Isn’t this worth a mention in the stories about Bush’s self-imposed $1 million contribution limit for the quarter?
Politico: Aaron Schock’s fundraiser: I feel ‘sad, angry, cheated’
By Jake Sherman, Anna Palmer and John BresnahanWagner said she has “requested any money donated to him in 2015 be returned.”“The response I received from the person managing his compliance now is that they legally have to return the 2016 general contributions, but not the primary money,” she wrote. “My request is that all of it should be returned.”In closing, Wagner wrote that she is “truly sorry for the pain Aaron’s situation is causing you, me, his friends, supporters, staff, donors, the voters, those who believed in him — everyone. This whole situation hurts everyone.”
The Baltimore Sun: Raskin says he’ll run for Congress in 8th District
By Michael DresserState Sen. Jamie Raskin of Montgomery County said Monday that he has decided to run for the Democratic nomination for the 8th District congressional seat next year.Raskin, a Montgomery County Democrat, said he will formally announce his race in April. He will try to succeed U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who is running for the Senate seat now held by Barbara A. Mikulski, whose retirement set off a political free-for-all through much of the state.
Wall Street Journal: Can Small Donors Power a GOP Presidential Campaign?
By Byron TauWith Sen. Ted Cruz‘s entrance into the presidential race this week, the 2016 cash dash is on in earnest. Mr. Cruz took in more than $500,000 in his first 24 hours as a candidate, with much of it coming in online.But the big question for the 2016 presidential campaign is whether small-donor fundraising — particularly email solicitations — can counterbalance the vast sums of money being raised through outside groups and at high-dollar fundraising events.While former Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, and Chris Christie all have major finance networks of big donors, other candidates are looking at a more grass roots approach to fundraising. Ben Carson‘s campaign manager, in an interview with GQ, predicted his campaign could raise $150 million for the Republican primaries by asking for $100 from 1.5 million supporters.
