Five Things to Know About the Scott Walker John Doe Ruling

[snacker]

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/07/12887/five-things-know-about-scott-walker-john-doe-ruling

"The Wisconsin Supreme Court has single-handedly rewritten the state’s limits on money in politics, rendering the state’s disclosure laws and contribution limits meaningless, and opening the door to unlimited funds directly from corporations and foreign firms.

"In a 4-2 decision that broke along ideological lines, the Court's conservative majority ended the John Doe probe into whether Governor Scott Walker illegally coordinated with supposedly "independent" dark money groups during the recall elections. The Court declared that any coordination that did occur didn't violate the law, since it only involved so-called "issue ads" that stopped short of expressly saying "vote for" or "vote against" a candidate.

In doing so, the Court's majority overturned years of precedent and practice in Wisconsin, issuing a decision that might be used to strike down campaign finance laws across the country. Previously, a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice's campaign was fined $60,000 for engaging in the exact same type of issue ad coordination as Walker.

Justice Shirley Abrahamson, writing in dissent, called the majority's decision "an unprecedented and faulty interpretation of Wisconsin's campaign finance law and of the First Amendment." Justice Patrick Crooks' dissent warned that the majority's decision "will profoundly affect the integrity of our electoral process."

Besides handing Walker a political victory just days after he announced his presidential run, the ruling eviscerates in Wisconsin campaign finance law--and could threaten similar limits around the country. Here are five things to know about the decision..."

- See more at: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/07/12887/five-things-know-about-scott-walker-john-doe-ruling#sthash.3f8ooRli.dpuf

[guillaumeb]

1. Did you know that Supreme Court Judges in the state are elected?

The Wisconsin judiciary consists of the supreme court, the court of appeals, the circuit court, and municipal courts. Judges are chosen in nonpartisan elections in the spring of each year. Only one supreme court justice and one court of appeals judge in each district may be elected in a given year.

Wisconsin has seen increasing levels of contributions to and spending by judicial candidates in recent years. Spending in a supreme court race topped the million-dollar mark for the first time in 1999. The 2009 supreme court race between incumbent chief justice Shirley Abrahamson and challenger Randy Koschnick was the first in the last three where candidate spending was higher than spending by special interest groups. A total of $2.1 million was spent by the candidates and outside groups. The $1.37 million spent by Abrahamson was the second-highest ever by a supreme court candidate. For more information, see the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's Hijacking Campaign 2009.
http://www.judicialselection.us/judicial_selection/index.cfm?state=WI

My take:
I would not imply that money might just influence decisions reached by justices who run for elections and who can accept campaign funding, but it just might.

[Warpy]

2. How interesting that it broke along partisan lines

It looks like another case of Republicans obstructing justice.

Maybe that will get those bastards impeached or otherwise thrown out as the winds change.

[Scuba]

3. 3) The ruling applies to the justices themselves

3) The ruling applies to the justices themselves

The decision green-lighting issue ad coordination doesn’t only apply to gubernatorial candidates. It applies to the justices themselves.

Wisconsin Supreme Court elections have become increasingly expensive affairs in recent years, with millions spent by outside groups supporting candidates on both sides.

Among the biggest spenders on Wisconsin Supreme Court elections have been Wisconsin Club for Growth and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, which are the same groups that allegedly coordinated with Walker and brought the challenge to these coordination rules. Together, these two groups spent $10 million on “issue ads” helping elect the court’s four-justice conservative majority.

Now that “issue ad” coordination is permissible, the justices can work directly with the same groups that were parties to this case.

[ewagner]

4. Trying to find the right words.....

....anticipated travesty of justice....

...par for the course in Walkerville...

...humiliating disgrace for all the people of the once-proud State of Wisconsin

...buffoonery costumed in the robes of justice...

...ill-considered, politically motivated, decision with profound effects on the future of elections, here and nationwide...

...politically expedient decision covered with a fig-leaf of judicial respectability....

I'm so angry I can't even reason with this...