Citizens for Responsible Government v. Thomas Barland et al.

Federal campaign finance laws and regulations
Campaign finance by state
Comparison of state campaign finance requirements
Satellite spending
Campaign finance agencies
Federal Election Commission
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

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).

John Doe investigations

See also: John Doe investigations related to Scott Walker

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.'"

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.

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."

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."

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. 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.

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.

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 . 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."

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.

The lawsuit presented the following two questions to the court:

“

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."

”

Decision

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered the case be set aside until the court ruled on other cases related to the John Doe investigations. In 2018, the Court rejected further hearings of the case.

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

• Citizens for Responsible Government v. Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, et. al.