Submitted by Brendan Fischer on February 13, 2015 -
3:03pm The prosecutor leading the probe into possible coordination between Governor Scott Walker's campaign and outside groups has asked some Wisconsin Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves from hearing a challenge to the investigation.
A notation in court records titled "Motion for Recusal and Notice of Ethical Concerns" indicates that on February 12, Special Prosecutor Francis Schmitz filed a sealed motion for one or more of the Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves from the case.
(Read the redacted motion here). Schmitz was previously on George W. Bush's shortlist for U.S. Attorney and said that he voted for Walker.
A bipartisan group of prosecutors allege that the Walker campaign illegally coordinated fundraising and expenditures with Wisconsin Club for Growth (WiCFG) and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC) and perhaps other groups) during the 2011 and 2012 recall elections.
WiCFG director R.J. Johnson was also Walker's campaign manager when the state faced a series of nine recall races after the passage of the union-busting Act 10 legislation. Representatives of the campaign or the dark money groups could face civil or criminal liability if prosecutors find that they conspired to evade campaign finance disclosure requirements and contribution limits.
(U.S. Department of Justice recently settled a criminal campaign coordination case in Virginia.) The Walker probe has been subject to a barrage of state and federal lawsuits, and in December the Wisconsin Supreme Court consolidated four different challenges to the investigation.
The Center for Media and Democracy first identified the conflicts-of-interest facing some Wisconsin Supreme Court justices in April of 2014. The groups bringing the challenge to the probe, WiCFG and WMC, have been the dominant spenders in Wisconsin Supreme Court elections in recent years, spending over $10 million since 2007 to elect the Court's Republican majority.
In most cases, the groups spent more than the candidates themselves. In two instances, the judges were elected by very narrow margins.
In Wisconsin, the decision to recuse rests solely with the justices themselves, and in 2010 the Court adopted rules drafted by the WMC declaring that the fact of a campaign contribution alone won't require recusal. Yet the level of spending by the groups in this case -- and their direct stake in the outcome -- could demand recusal under the U.S. Constitution, following the 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Caperton v. Massey. A majority of the U.S. Supreme Court declared that where a donor "had a significant and disproportionate influence on the outcome" of a judge's election, and where an election was decided by a small number of votes, the risk of bias is significant enough to demand recusal.
The court record does not indicate which justices prosecutors are asking to step aside in the case. According to CMD's analysis, WiCFG, WMC, and their offshoots spent $3,685,000 supporting Justice David Prosser in his 2011 race, five times as much as the Prosser campaign, in an election decided by just 7,000 votes.
WMC spent five-and-a-half times as much supporting Justice Michael Gableman as Gableman's own campaign in 2008, in a race he won by 20,000 votes, and WiCFG also surpassed Gableman's campaign spending.
WMC and WiCFG together spent twice as much as Justice Annette Ziegler's campaign in her 2007 race, and WMC and WiCFG together outspent Justice Patience Roggensack in her reelection campaign last year, but those races were not as close. Plus, if the justices hear the case and strike down the coordination rules, their campaigns could take advantage of the newly-lawless electoral landscape.
In future elections, the same justices who will be deciding whether Wisconsin’s coordination rules are constitutional could work hand-in-glove with the same groups that are bringing the challenge to those rules.
When Justice Annette Ziegler is up for reelection in 2017, her campaign could coordinate with WMC, which spent $2.5 million on her last race. When Justice Michael Gableman runs again in 2018, his campaign could coordinate with Wisconsin Club for Growth, which spent at least a half-million when -
See more at: Link to P.R.Watch
Your “SOURCE” : )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Media_and_Democracy
“..CMD was founded in 1993 by progressive writer John Stauber in Madison, Wisconsin. Lisa Graves is president of CMD......
“CMD states that it accepts donations from “individuals and philanthropic foundations through gifts and grants”, but “no funding from for-profit corporations or grants from government agencies.” It maintains a partial list of supporters on its website.
In a column for Fox News, Dan Gainor wrote that BanksterUSA received $200,000 from the Open Society Institute (OSI), a grantmaking network founded by George Soros, aimed to shape public policy to promote democratic governance, human rights, and economic, legal, and social reform. CMD stated that it received a grant from OSI “to continue work on national security issues”.
Fox News reported that in 2011 CMD received $864,740 in donations. $520,000, or 60% of 2011’s total revenue, was received from the Schwab Charitable Fund, a donor advised fund which preserves the anonymity of donors by not disclosing individual donor names.
According to the conservative news website Watchdog.org, the Tides Foundation, a foundation known to donate primarily to liberal organizations, reported giving CMD $160,000 in 2011, but that money did not appear on CMD’s tax return. When asked why CMD heavily criticizes conservative organizations for not revealing their donors while refusing to name all of CMD’s funders, CMD’s presdient Lisa Graves said, “The question of conservative funders versus liberal funders, I think, is a matter of false equivalency.”
In June 2014, Politico reported that the Center for Media and Democracy was a recipient of funding through the Democracy Alliance, a network of progressive donors.”.....