Archive for the 'Disclosure' Category
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser “issued a 15-page opinion explaining why he believed he could participate” in the recent campaign finance decision involving Gov. Scott Walker’s anti-recall campaign, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Prosser joined the majority of the court in the “John Doe” case, when it ruled that no campaign finance laws were violated by the anti-recall campaign and several conservative groups that were alleged to have coordinated their activities. The same groups spent significant sums to benefit Prosser’s supreme court campaign and the campaigns of other justices in the majority, and a special prosecutor asked Prosser and another justice to recuse themselves from the case. Neither did so. (See Gavel Grab.)
“Prosser wrote that outside spending to help him was ‘very valuable to my campaign’ but did not rise to a level that would require him to step down from the challenge to the investigation of those groups,” according to the Journal-Sentinel.
Meanwhile, critics of the Wisconsin high court’s ruling are urging prosecutors to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that the justices who benefited from outside spending, but did not recuse themselves, may have had an unconstitutional conflict of interest. (See Gavel Grab).
In a strongly-worded column for Newsweek, Billy Corriher and Maya Efrati of Legal Progress urge prosecutors in Wisconsin’s recent “John Doe” campaign finance case to appeal the ruling of the state Supreme Court in that case.
The ruling in the “John Doe” case effectively halted further investigation of alleged collusion between Gov. Scott Walker’s anti-recall campaign and conservative groups, when the court decided that there were no violations of campaign finance laws (see Gavel Grab). But Corriher and Efrati argue that because several justices on the court benefited from millions of dollars in campaign spending by those same conservative groups, “Prosecutors have a strong argument that the Wisconsin justices had an unconstitutional conflict of interest.” They argue that the justices who benefited from the spending should have recused themselves, and that since they did not, there are grounds for appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The writers also suggest that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Caperton v. AT Massey Coal Co. Inc. should serve as a meaningful precedent. “Caperton has not yet been applied by any lower court to require recusal,” they note. “But if the decision means anything, it must apply to the Wisconsin decision.”
In the wake of a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that some critics see as gutting the state’s campaign finance law (see Gavel Grab), a Madison.com editorial calls on the state legislature to pass legislation to shine a light on political “dark money.”
The editorial criticized the ruling of a “hyperpartisan and politicized majority” of the court, and then urged the legislature to adopt legislation like that passed by some other states to require that so-called dark money groups disclose their larger donors.
Legislation to require politically active nonprofit groups to disclose their donors was declared dead in the Texas legislature, The Texas Tribune reported.
“The Legislature gets a ‘F’ on ethics reform this session. The bills they passed largely protect the politicians and limit disclosure of information,” said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, a Justice at Stake partner organization.
The Texas Tribune subsequently reported in a different article about Gov. Greg Abbott’s news conference following the conclusion of the legislative session, “Abbott Opposes Curbs on Dark Money.” Read more
A state law making judicial elections in West Virginia nonpartisan will take effect June 8. Opinions of it are mixed, according to a Charleston Gazette article, with a Democratic judge commending it and a leader of the West Virginia Association for Justice panning it.
“We have written on the front of the court house ‘equal justice under law.’ The best thing anyone can do for me is to let me be in a nonpartisan election so I can always have the appearance of that,” said Circuit Judge Phillip Stowers of Putnam County. He is the county’s only elected Democrat.
Tony Majestro, president of the state Association for Justice, said, “Partisan elections aren’t the problem with our judicial elections. The problem is, is that we have, in the past, had large outside contributions that are undisclosed — at least at the time they’re made and at the time of an election.” He added, “Our campaign finance disclosure rules are so full of loopholes they are essentially useless.”
In some cases, the sources of what is called political “dark money” are disclosed because of action in the courts, Ciara Torres-Spelliscy writes in a commentary published at the Brennan Center for Justice website.
Among the examples cited by Torres-Spelliscy are sunlight on two dark money groups that had concealed spending sources for two California ballot initiatives; sources of money for a dark money group that were disclosed after a judge’s order in Montana; and a lawsuit settlement in New York that led a semiconductor company to agree to disclose its political spending.
Torres-Spelliscy’s views are her own. The Brennan Center is a Justice at Stake partner organization.
Once Gov. Steve Bullock signs the legislation, will there be an end to the flood of “dark money” in Montana elections? That’s what Huffington Post predicts after the Montana legislature finished approving a campaign finance measure this week.
“The Montana legislature passed sweeping campaign finance legislation on Wednesday that will require the disclosure of all donors to any independent group spending money on state-level elections,” Huffington Post reported.
“Montana elections are about to become the most transparent in the nation, requiring those trying to influence our elections to come out of the dark money shadows,” said Bullock. He is a Democrat. The legislature is dominated by Republicans. Read more
An Arkansas House Committee has rejected legislation to require disclosure of names of individual donors to “dark money” campaign ads, like those aired in a state Supreme Court election in 2014.
The Law Enforcement Alliance of America aired more than $400,000 in TV advertising that accused candidate Tim Cullen of believing that child pornography is a victimless crime. Cullen, who lost to then-Court of Appeals Judge Robin Wynne, and his supporters said the ad distorted his views, and FactCheck.org called it “misleading” and “beyond the pale” (see Gavel Grab).
ArkansasOnline said in reporting on the House panel vote this week that critics voiced concerns about safeguarding the privacy of political donors. It said about the LEAA, “It was never clear who donated money to the Virginia group for the Arkansas advertising.” Read more
A New Mexico House bill that would “increase disclosure requirements on independent expenditure groups” passed its first committee vote on Tuesday, according to the Albuquerque Journal.
The measure, proposed in response to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, was approved by the House Safety and Civil Affairs Committee 7-1. It now moves to the Judiciary Committee for more hearings.
A similar bill has been proposed in the New Mexico Senate, but no action has been taken yet.
When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the issues raised in a condemned man’s appeal even after it had denied a stay and he was executed, the episode begged for disclosure about the court’s reasoning on both orders, an assistant law professor contends.
In a New York Times op-ed, William Baude of the University of Chicago contends that it is time for the court to shed more sunlight on its “secret decisions,” as he calls the court’s orders docket, in order to give lawyers and lower court judges more guidance. He proposes two changes: Read more