Special Prosecutor On John Doe Ruling: Truth and Justice Denied For Wisconsin

Tweet

As you probably know, I rarely post the entire text or works of others on the blog without permission, but feel obligated to do so this time given the serious nature and deleterious impact the state's supreme court John Doe ruling will have on the state of Wisconsin.

It speaks for itself.

From: Francis Schmitz
Date: Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:17 PM
Subject: Statement regarding Wisconsin Supreme court ruling
To:

I am disappointed with today’s ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court and respectfully disagree with the conclusions drawn by the majority which end the investigation. The decision represents a loss for all of the citizens of Wisconsin — independents, Democrats and Republicans alike.

It defies common sense that a Wisconsin resident of average means who gives $25 to a campaign has his or her name publicly reported under the law but, according to this decision, someone who gives, for example, $100,000 to a group which closely coordinates with the same campaign can remain anonymous. The United States Supreme Court has fittingly characterized such donations as “disguised contributions” to the candidate. As stated in Wisconsin Statute 11.001, “[w]hen the true source of support or extent of support is not fully disclosed, or when a candidate becomes overly dependent upon large private contributors, the democratic process is subjected to a potential corrupting influence.”

Particular justices assert as fact many allegations that I specifically denied in my response materials. There has been no fact-finding hearing conducted at any level establishing, for example, that search warrants were executed unprofessionally or that persons were denied an opportunity to contact their attorneys. All of these search warrants were audio-recorded and it is wrong for the court to accept as true the information alleged by some of the Unnamed Movants and their media outlets.

It is also unfortunate that the citizens of Wisconsin will not have the benefit of a public discussion of the facts and the law because the court decided not to allow oral argument. Consequently, I was denied the opportunity to appropriately respond to the campaign of misinformation about how and why the investigation was conducted.

Sourced from Election Law Blog