Judge blocks Wisconsin law used in Walker probe

[midnight]

"Randa, in agreeing to temporarily block enforcement of the law, said that time was of the essence with the election just three weeks away. Walker is in a tight race for re-election against Democrat Mary Burke. Democrats and unions unsuccessfully sought to recall Walker in 2012 after he pushed through a law sharply curbing the power of public sector unions in Wisconsin.

"Any further delay threatens to negate the effectiveness of CRG's requested relief," Randa wrote of the group.

Prosecutors have argued in court filings that coordination between a candidate and an outside group is illegal if it's done to influence the outcome of an election, even if the speech is focused on issues and doesn't advocate for or against any candidate.

Wisconsin prosecutors cited the campaign coordination law in launching a so-called "John Doe" investigation into Walker's campaign and at least 29 conservative groups. The conservative groups argue that such coordination is protected by the U.S. constitutional right to free speech."

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/10/14/judge-blocks-wisconsin-law-used-walker-probe/17276211/

[Half-Century Man]

1. Why don't they just stand behind voters and directly pay them 100 bucks for a republican vote.

Why doesn't Randa just declare non republican votes unconstitutional?

[midnight]

2. This is so close to the election. Hopefully this will not stand.

"I expect this ruling will not stand. To begin with, the last time one of Judge Randa’s extremely deregulatory campaign finance opinions got to the Seventh Circuit, the appellate court smacked down Judge Randa’s reading of the First Amendment rules for campaigns and coordination:

The Supreme Court has yet to determine what “coordination” means. Is the scope of permissible regulation limited to groups that advocate the election of particular candidates, or can government also regulate coordination of contributions and speech about political issues, when the speakers do not expressly advocate any person’s election? What if the speechimplies, rather than expresses, a preference for a particular candidate’s election? If regulation of coordination about pure issue advocacy is permissible, how tight must the link be between the politician’s committee and the advocacy group? Uncertainty is a powerful reason to leave this litigation in state court, where it may meet its end as a matter of state law without any need to resolve these constitutional questions….

The Supreme Court regularly decides campaign finance issues by closely divided votes. No opinion issued by the Supreme Court, or by any court of appeals, establishes (“clearly” or otherwise) that the First Amendment forbids regulation of coordination between campaign committees and issue-advocacy groups—let alone that the First Amendment forbids even an inquiry into that topic. The district court broke new ground. Its views may be vindicated, but until that day public officials enjoy the benefit of qualified immunity from liability in damages.

Further, we might invoke the Purcell principle even here: Judge Randa is changing the rules very close to an election, with the risk of confusion about what’s legal and the risk of undermining the interests in preventing corruption that undergird anti-coordination requirements."




http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66874