Citizens for Responsible Government v. Thomas Barland et al.
Citizens for Responsible Government v. Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, et. al. was a state court case filed as a result of the John Doe investigations related to Scott Walker. The suit was brought against the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB) by the group Citizens for Responsible Government (CRG).[1]
John Doe investigations
Two John Doe investigations were launched by Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm (D) into the activities of staff and associates of Gov. Scott Walker (R).[2]
The first investigation, John Doe I, was launched after Walker aide Darlene Wink noticed funds were missing from the money raised by Operation Freedom, a charitable event for veterans that Walker hosted annually. Walker's office turned the case over to the Milwaukee County DA's office to investigate the missing funds.[3][2][4]
Over a year passed before the DA's office began investigating the case. By this time, Walker had announced his candidacy for Governor of Wisconsin. On May 5, 2010, Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf asked for the authority to launch a John Doe investigation into the missing funds. He asked for the John Doe on the premise of determining where the funds had originated (i.e., sponsors and donors of the Operation Freedom Event). His request was granted by Judge Neal Nettesheim, who had been appointed the John Doe I judge.[2][5]
During the 2010 gubernatorial campaign, the John Doe investigation was expanded multiple times to include a Walker donor and members of Walker's county executive staff. The homes, offices and cars of these people were raided and searched, and property, such as computers and cell phones, was seized. The investigation lasted three years and resulted in the convictions of six people, four of whom weren’t related to the missing funds on which the investigation was predicated. The announcement of the charges against the six were made in January 2012, in the midst of an effort to recall Gov. Walker due to his support for Act 10.[6][7][8]
On June 5, 2012, Gov. Walker won a recall election (R). In August 2012, the first John Doe investigation was rolled into a second investigation, John Doe II. This investigation was based on the belief that Governor Walker’s campaign had illegally coordinated with conservative social welfare groups that had engaged in issue advocacy during the recall elections.[9][10]
The second John Doe investigation spanned multiple counties but was consolidated into one investigation, overseen by an appointed judge and one special prosecutor, Francis Schmitz. During the early morning hours of October 3, 2013, investigators served search warrants on several homes and subpoenaed records from 29 conservative organizations. Several weeks later, on October 25, 2013, three targets of the subpoenas filed a motion to have the subpoenas quashed. The judge overseeing the investigation, Judge Gregory Peterson, granted that motion in January 2014, stating that the prosecutor's theory of criminal activity was not, in fact, criminal under Wisconsin statutes. Although Schmitz filed an appeal to a higher court, the investigation was effectively stalled.[11][12][13][14][15]
A series of lawsuits were filed, one against the John Doe prosecutors for a violation of free speech and several others against the agency that oversees campaign finance law, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB), for trying to enforce unconstitutional regulations of issue advocacy groups, the regulations on which the prosecutor's theory was based.[16][17][13][18][19][20]
The legality of the investigation eventually went before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. On July 16, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in a 4-2 decision to halt the John Doe II investigation officially. The court combined three cases into one, thereby simultaneously ruling on all three. In its ruling, the Supreme Court criticized Schmitz's handling of the case and declared the actions of Chisholm and Schmitz were violations of the targets' First Amendment rights to political speech.[21][22]
The Supreme Court, in interpreting Wisconsin's campaign finance law, ruled "that the definition of 'political purposes' [...] is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution because its language 'is so sweeping that its sanctions may be applied to constitutionally protected conduct which the state is not permitted to regulate.'"[21]
The court noted that since issue advocacy is "beyond the reach of Ch. 11," Schmitz's theory of illegal coordination between Walker's campaign and social welfare groups was invalid. The court further declared "the special prosecutor's legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law," thereby declaring an official end to the John Doe II investigation.[21]
Regarding the other two cases addressed in the ruling, the court denied Schmitz's supervisory writ and affirmed Peterson's original motion to quash the subpoenas. It also ruled that the John Doe II judges, Peterson and Barbara Kluka before him, had not "violated a plain legal duty" by allowing the appointment of one judge and one special prosecutor to preside over a multi-county John Doe, though the court did concede "the circumstances surrounding the formation of the John Doe investigation raise serious concerns."[21]
In its ruling, the court ordered that "everything gathered as potential evidence—including thousands of pages of emails and other documents—be returned and all copies be destroyed."[23][24]
Lawsuit
Background
On August 10, 2012, Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm asked for a John Doe investigation based on the belief that the Scott Walker campaign had engaged in coordination with social welfare groups making independent expenditures in the recall elections.[25][26] Independent expenditures are monies spent on political advertising in support of or against a particular candidate, coming from outside a candidate's own election organization.[25][27]
According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), "When an individual or political committee pays for a communication that is coordinated with a candidate or party committee, the communication is considered an in-kind contribution to that candidate or party committee and is subject to the limits, prohibitions and reporting requirements of the federal campaign finance law. In general, a payment for a communication is 'coordinated' if it is made in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate’s authorized committee or their agents, or a political party committee or its agents." Super PACs, political action committees and social welfare groups, including 501(c)(4)s, are forbidden by law from coordinating with candidates and their campaigns.[28][29]
After subpoenas were served on a number of conservative groups, several of the targets filed a motion with John Doe II Judge Gregory Peterson to quash those subpoenas .[30] On January 10, 2014, Peterson granted the motion to quash the subpoenas based on the fact that the prosecution's theory of the crime was not, in fact, criminal under Wisconsin statutes. In the order, Peterson wrote that the "subpoenas fail to show probable cause that a crime was committed."[31][32]
Citizens for Responsible Government asked the court to define the meaning of the statutory term "political purposes," and whether, based on the meaning, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board was allowed to regulate issue advocacy group coordination with candidates or officeholders. The case was initially filed in federal court, but that case was stayed so the issue could be resolved by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.[1]
The lawsuit presented the following two questions to the court:[1]
| “ | 1. Whether the definition of “political purposes” contained in Wisconsin Statutes § 11.01(16) encompasses issue advocacy—speech on the issues that does not expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a particular candidate and is not the functional equivalent of such express advocacy—that is coordinated with a candidate for office.
2. Whether Wisconsin Statutes § 11.10(4) operates to transform an advocacy organization into a “subcommittee” of a candidate’s official campaign committee if the advocacy organization has coordinated issue advocacy with the candidate."[33] |
” |
Decision
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered the case be set aside until the court ruled on other cases related to the John Doe investigations.[34] In 2018, the Court rejected further hearings of the case.[35]
See also
- John Doe investigations related to Scott Walker
- Timeline of John Doe investigations related to Scott Walker
- Wisconsin John Doe laws
- Scott Walker
- Wisconsin Government Accountability Board
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 State of Wisconsin Supreme Court’’, "Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates, Inc., v. Thomas Barland etal," accessed May 18, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Milwaukee Division, "Eric O’Keefe, and Wisconsin Club for Growth, Inc.," accessed February 23, 2015
- ↑ Free Republic, "Operation Freedom: Milwaukee County Zoo," July 1, 2005
- ↑ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Authorities seize computer of Walker aide," August 23, 2010
- ↑ Wisconsin Reporter, "John Doe I judge says he’s not responsible for John Doe II," June 10, 2014
- ↑ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Walker appointees charged in John Doe investigation," January 6, 2012
- ↑ Wisconsin State Journal, "New charges in John Doe investigation allege pattern of illegal fundraising among Walker aides," January 27, 2012
- ↑ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Walker recall effort kicks off," November 15, 2011
- ↑ Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, "Canvass Results for 2012 JUNE 5 RECALL ELECTION," accessed July 2, 2015
- ↑ United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee), "O'Keefe et al v. Schmitz et al," February 10, 2014
- ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, "ERIC O’KEEFE, et al., v. JOHN T. CHISHOLM, et al.," accessed July 19, 2015
- ↑ Wall Street Journal, "Wisconsin Political Speech Raid," November 18, 2013
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 State of Wisconsin Circuit Court Waukesha County, "ERIC O’KEEFE, and WISCONSIN CLUB FOR GROWTH, INC. v. WISCONSIN GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD, and KEVIN J. KENNEDY," accessed July 19, 2015
- ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, "ERIC O'KEEFE and WISCONSIN CLUB FOR GROWTH INCORPORATED, v. JOHN T. CHISHOLM, BRUCE J. LANDGRAF and DAVID ROBLES," accessed July 19, 2015
- ↑ Wall Street Journal, "Wisconsin Political Speech Victory," January 10, 2014
- ↑ United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Milwaukee Division, "ERIC O’KEEFE, and WISCONSIN CLUB FOR GROWTH, INC., v. FRANCIS SCHMITZ, et. al.," accessed July 19, 2015
- ↑ Watchdog.org, "Target files civil rights lawsuit against Wisconsin’s John Doe prosecutors," February 10, 2014
- ↑ State of Wisconsin Supreme Court, "Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates, Inc., v. Thomas Barland, et. al.," accessed July 19, 2015
- ↑ Watchdog.org, "GAB, Milwaukee County DA bail on key provision behind war on conservatives," November 6, 2014
- ↑ Watchdog.org, "Federal judge’s judgment takes John Doe probe off life support," February 1, 2015
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 Supreme Court of Wisconsin, "Case No. 2013AP296-OA & 2014AP417-W through 2014AP421-W & 2013AP2504-W through 2013AP2508-W," accessed July 17, 2015
- ↑ Watchdog.org, "Wisconsin Supreme Court shuts down John Doe investigation, affirms First Amendment," July 16, 2015
- ↑ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "4-2 ruling halts inquiry focusing on campaign finance laws," July 16, 2015
- ↑ Wisconsin State Journal, "Supreme Court ends John Doe probe that threatened Scott Walker's presidential bid," July 16, 2015
- ↑ 25.0 25.1 Wall Street Journal, "Wisconsin Political Speech Victory," January 10, 2014
- ↑ State of Wisconsin Circuit Court Milwaukee County, "Petition for Commencement of a John Doe Preceeding," August 10, 2012
- ↑ State of Wisconsin Circuit Court Milwaukee County, "Petition for Commencement of a John Doe Preceding," August 10, 2012
- ↑ Federal Election Commission, "Coordinated Communications and Independent Expenditures," accessed May 5, 2015
- ↑ Federal Election Commission, "Coordinated Communications and Independent Expenditures," January 2013
- ↑ State of Wisconsin Circuit Court Waukesha County County, "Eric O'Keefe v Government Accountability Board," December 19, 2014
- ↑ In the Matter of a John Doe Proceeding, "Decision and Order Granting Motions to Quash Subpoenas and Return of Property," January 10, 2014
- ↑ Wisconsin Reporter, "WSJ: John Doe judge deals body blow to secret probe targeting conservatives," January 10, 2014
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Supreme Court of Wisconsin, "Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates, Inc. v. Barland," December 16, 2014
- ↑ Wisconsin Supreme Court, "Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates, Inc. v. Thomas Barland," accessed June 1, 2025
