[Cincinatus' Wife]

March 2014: The story behind Wisconsin’s secret war

April 2015: Wisconsin’s Shame: ‘I Thought It Was a Home Invasion’

July 16, 2015: Excerpts of Majority opinion:

• The justice says the special prosecutor, Francis Schmitz, rooted his probe in “vague, overbroad” sections of the state’s campaign finance law, giving him too much discretion:

The lack of clarity in Ch. 11, which the special prosecutor relies upon, leads us to the unsettling conclusion that it is left to government bureaucrats and/or individual prosecutors to determine how much coordination between campaign committees and independent groups is “too much” coordination. In essence, under his theory, every candidate, in every campaign in which an issue advocacy group participates, would get their own John Doe proceeding and their own special prosecutor to determine the extent of any coordination. This is not, and cannot, be the law in a democracy…

The special prosecutor has disregarded the vital principle that in our nation and our state political speech is a fundamental right and is afforded the highest level of protection. The special prosecutor’s theories…would assure that such political speech will be investigated with paramilitary-style home invasions conducted in the pre-dawn hours and then prosecuted and punished. In short, the special prosecutor completely ignores the command that, when seeking to regulate issue advocacy groups, such regulation must be done with “narrow specificity.”

• The justice defends the decision by a state judge presiding over the investigation to quash subpoenas in the case:

John Doe judges are given enormous discretion to control the scope and conduct of a John Doe proceeding. With this important point in mind, we now turn to the specific issue before us: whether Reserve Judge Peterson violated a plain legal duty when he quashed the subpoenas and search warrants and ordered the return of all seized property. He did not.

• The opinion concludes with another reprimand of the special prosecutor:

Our lengthy discussion of these three cases can be distilled into a few simple, but important, points. It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing. In other words, the special prosecutor was the instigator of a “perfect storm” of wrongs that was visited upon the innocent Unnamed Movants and those who dared to associate with them."..

[Sherman Logan]

To be fair, I suspect there was some degree of coordination going on between the Walker campaign and the advocacy groups.

As there is no doubt between the various progressive groups and the campaigns of the candidates on their side.

The question is whether the WI groups crossed the edge between legal and illegal. And, of course, the methods used in this investigation are unconstitutional on their face.

[afraidfortherepublic]

The Daily Beast gives liberals a platform to whine about the recent John Doe decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court favoring Scott Walker.

FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.

[Pontiac]

Progressives say the justices should have recused themselves, because they benefited from issue-advocacy ads.

Judges who should have recused themselves from an important case.

Where have I heard that before recently?

Hmmm

[fella]

So the lawfare bullies have their own shenanigans pulled on them and “now” they say it’s not fair.

[Timber Rattler]

Well, Walker doesn't really have anything to smile about since he and his staff abandoned the victims of Chisholm's witch hunt and then treated them like lepers. Loyalty must be a foreign concept to him.

[Paulie]

—“This is our state,” he continued. “And hey, if Walker keeps going, this will be the country.”—

He say this like it’s something bad.