(Link will work for nonsubscribers to the WSJ.)
ADDED: Since I'm adding the "Daniel Bice" tag, I want to quote this part of the article:
In a recent online chat, a reader asked Daniel Bice, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's go-to reporter for prosecutors, why his articles failed to explain the difference between "express advocacy" and "issue advocacy"—a crucial distinction in the law on coordination between political campaigns and outside groups.
"The reason we don't go into great detail on express advocacy is that you can't discuss it without going into great detail. As you just did," Mr. Bice responded. So Mr. Bice admits that he leaves out crucial information because it's all so very complicated.
We're sorry if campaign law has become so complex that the relevant details can't fit in a newspaper article, but allow us to give it a try.
पोस्ट्स
५९ टिप्पण्या:
It's the Wall Street Journal so, you know, it's all bullshit. Corporate Amerikka and blah, blah,blah.
Your link is pointing to something called "The Liberty Fund" which is being flagged as a dangerous site by my PC.
This one routes through Google, should skip the paywall. (You still get hit on to subscribe, but hey, they have a product to sell.)
Garage bait?
@phantommut
The Liberty Fund is a reputable organization and it is paying the WSJ to host the article outside of the WSJ subscriber system.
So this isn't undercutting the WSJ effort at commerce.
"Corporate Amerikka and blah, blah,blah."
The Obama voters must include one who gets up in the morning and so must have a job. Who knew ?
This is a problem of Too Much Government.
Congress should make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
How's that for an idea?
Hey Dan Bice, that wasn't too hard to lay for readers now, was it? Maybe your unwillingness to address the issues is way over your own head so you just take the talking points the liberals are sending you and put them in your articles.
The media in the state of Wisconsin is truly pathetic when it comes to this situation. And, too many citizens are too lazy to read and/or listen and/or search out other venues for information about this. I hope the ruling comes quickly, though I have no belief it will happen before the election. Cynically, I believe the decision will be released the first Friday in November.
Ann, thanks for the info. I'll customize my blocker (McAfee SiteAdvisor).
It is an interesting yet solely one sided view of the issue.
Lawfare loses potency to influence outcomes when everyone knows how it works.
From the article, "This distinction is critical because while express advocacy is considered speech that
can be regulated, issue advocacy is speech that has the highest level of constitutional
protection. The right of citizens to petition their government and to rally friends and
neighbors to a cause is at the heart of what the First Amendment is intended to
protect."
How do you reconcile restrictions on express advocay and the First Amendment?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Express advocacy is speech, far more so than burning a flag or many of the other things the courts have protected on First Amendment grounds.
Mark said...
It is an interesting yet solely one sided view of the issue.
The prosecution's and the anti-Walker press's? No, it's not that interesting.
If you were saying the WSJ's position was one-sided, then fine, could you point to someone advocating the other side that is willing to address the actual laws involved?
Well everyone knows that a CRIMINAL investigation by CRIME prosecutors targeting the secret CONSPIRACIES of an ILLEGAL political gangster called John Doe is the story about Scot Walker... and is the story... and is the story..
Whether it is also free political speech is just a sneaky evasion of the CRIMES committed by THE CRIMINAL WALKER daily since birth.
Only fascists like garage want to silence citizens who disagree with him and his party, so they can harvest the greatest amount of corruption for themselves.
It was useful to point out that the Doe probe and the one sided coverage those of us living in Wisconsin see every day is a huge "in kind" contribution to the Burke campaign.
This is what lawfare and the liberal media do. This was and is the only point of the exercise to those conducting this star chamber nonsense.
All those Alabama sheriffs who tried to obstruct the exercise of civil rights by American citizens moved to Wisconsin and became Democrat prosecutors.
Who knew?
You have a copy of their legal brief? Althouse posted Club for Growths here the other day but not the other.
As the proceedings have been secret and the prosecutors have not regularly leaked as opposed to Club for Growth, there has not been a lot about their arguments available.
Tuesday should be interesting, as the hearing is open and is the first such hearing in this case.
I thought we got loads of leaks from the prosecutors in the form of Walker emails, hence how we know about SECRET ROUTERS.
[Or maybe those weren't leaks from prosecutors but the investigators? Either way, I thought this case was leaking like a sieve from both directions.]
"Congress should make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
How's that for an idea?"
Quaint. {/sarcasm}
"It is an interesting yet solely one sided view of the issue."
I'm sure garage will be along shortly to link to a breathless, hyperbolic article from The Progressive.
You're right Matthew. Leaks from the prosecutor's side get a substantial mention in the brief filed by Club for Growth.
They accuse the Doe side of timing the leaks to have maximum political impact.
Mark-
The point is that there has been a large amount of press covering the allegations of wrongdoing. Why was any of that reported without the person doing the reporting also figuring out what the law says and in what way the Walker supporters supposedly broke it?
"The media in the state of Wisconsin is truly pathetic when it comes to this situation."
You're giving them the benefit of the doubt when they do not deserve it. They aren't pathetic, they're on the other side.
"The real in-kind campaign contribution here has been for prosecutors to Mr. Walker's Democratic challenger Mary Burke."
Let's not forget the invaluable in-kind contribution of Mr. Bice and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
All campaign finance laws are unconstitutional. Any limits at all are a violation of the First Amendment.
Unaccountable secret funding of politicians is the foundation of democracy and freedom. Only a fascist who hates America would say otherwise.
Remember, Chuck Chvala was a bad ambitious man and deserved whatever he got. With regards to Walker and WCfG, it's Gulags and Guillotines. You see, anytime a Republican is being investigated it's like Hitler marching into Poland.
Garage: We went over this before. Chvala admitted to being guilty. Walker has not; Walker has the right to the assumption of innocence. Those things, alone, mean we CAN'T compare the two. Not only that, were the investigations into Chvala done in the same manner as the one on Walker, or was it done in a more open and honest manner?
"All campaign finance laws are unconstitutional. Any limits at all are a violation of the First Amendment.
Unaccountable secret funding of politicians is the foundation of democracy and freedom. Only a fascist who hates America would say otherwise."
-- If I can write an anonymous treatise advocating for a politician, why shouldn't I be able to give money to them anonymously, presuming it is a legitimate donation to the campaign and not an illegal bribe?
Because, we've seen what happens when you give money to candidates/causes not anonymously. People attempt to ruin your life. I used to think the best solution was to simply allow people to donate, but do so openly -- the left has shown me that they'll boycott businesses, send death threats and in some cases throw things through people's windows, for donating money to oppose or support certain legal issues on the ballot.
And they'll do that intimidation anonymously.
Americans have the right to political speech; they have the right to support political policies, even if I don't like those policies.
If the money is being given in a legal fashion -- no quid pro quo, etc. -- there is absolutely no reason the government should be allowed to squelch it.
Garage: We went over this before. Chvala admitted to being guilty. Walker has not; Walker has the right to the assumption of innocence. Those things, alone, mean we CAN'T compare the two.
Yes, after a thorough investigation was completed Chvala plead guilty on two counts. Chvala didn't admit he was guilty when the investigation was ongoing, and that investigation wasn't halted by a federal judge.
Also, Chvala didn't attempt to change state laws as Republicans attempted to do when subpoenas were delivered.
Legislative Republicans surprised many in the state in March of 2014 when they tried to rush Senate Bill 654 through the legislature to explicitly carve-out an exception to the state's campaign finance statutes for so-called "issue ads," those thinly-veiled election messages that stop short of telling viewers to vote for or against a candidate.
Garage: Stop, pause, breathe. Refocus on the matter at hand.
Focus on the ACTUAL article: "The latest media misinformation concerns emails that show Mr. Walker raised money for the Wisconsin Club for Growth. But raising money for Super Pacs and 501(c) groups is routine political behavior, as President Obama and Harry Reid routinely demonstrate."
"Prosecutors pursuing Mr. Walker have been pushing a theory of campaign-finance law that the state's own campaign finance regulator, the Government Accountability Board,
has admitted is unconstitutional under Supreme Court precedent. The theory has also been rejected by the Seventh Circuit and by two judges in the Walker probe."
That's the problem. The investigation has been called unconstitutional not just by a friendly federal judge with his strings being pulled; pretty much everyone except the prosecutors and ardent anti-Walkerites have said it is.
the left has shown me that they'll boycott businesses, send death threats and in some cases throw things through people's windows, for donating money to oppose or support certain legal issues on the ballot.
Exactly. We had the same thing happen here in Wisconsin, but with the right committing the violence against the left. Coffeehouses were vandalized and people were spit on. There is even a list online of everyone who was in favor of the recall elections, complete with their home addresses, for the Knotzies (that is what a local right-wing terror group calls themselves) to use as a tool to target others.
The only possible way that type of bullshit can be prevented is if our entire electoral process, including the funding, is totally and absolutely anonymous.
If the money is being given in a legal fashion -- no quid pro quo, etc. -- there is absolutely no reason the government should be allowed to squelch it.
Why the hell should "quid pro quid" be illegal?! If I want to give money to a politician it doesn't matter what was said at the time.
Stop denying me my free speech, you fucking fascist!!
Ah. I see Madisonfella doesn't want an honest discussion. Done and done.
The investigation has been called unconstitutional not just by a friendly federal judge with his strings being pulled; pretty much everyone except the prosecutors and ardent anti-Walkerites have said it is.
Except for the Government Accountability Board who voted (unanimously) to initiate, the judge in Milwaukee who okayed it, a state judge who reaffirmed it, and the 7th Circuit who put a hold on Judge Randas strange halting of the probe. Next week is oral arguments at the 7th Circuit. We'll see if they overturn Randa yet again. Or not.
Ah. I see Matthew Sablan hates free speech and is a Knotzie denier. Done and done.
madisonfella said...
All campaign finance laws are unconstitutional. Any limits at all are a violation of the First Amendment.
Unaccountable secret funding of politicians is the foundation of democracy and freedom. Only a fascist who hates America would say otherwise.
9/5/14, 9:18 AM"
Ask your communist friends about their secret donations. As for public funding, I don't wish to be compelled to finance your leftist assholes and you shouldn't be compelled to finance mine (assuming you actually pay taxes).
Garage, unless the WSJ is wrong, the GAB has changed their tune: "Prosecutors pursuing Mr. Walker have been pushing a theory of campaign-finance law that the state's own campaign finance regulator, the Government Accountability Board, has admitted is unconstitutional under Supreme Court precedent."
Madison and Garage - What is your legal analysis? Enough of the name calling. Why is it constitutional to punish coordination about issues of public policy?
"Prosecutors pursuing Mr. Walker have been pushing a theory of campaign-finance law that the state's own campaign finance regulator, the Government Accountability Board, has admitted is unconstitutional under Supreme Court precedent."
With no name given who admitted that, when admitted, or link.
The Milwaukee reporter's response as to why he didn't report on the distinction between issue advocacy and express advocacy is embarrassing. Admitting this level of incompetence shows that his editors should not assign him to cover these stories.
Garage: That's a quote from the article posted by Althouse. (Ann? What's the proper way to refer to her? Oh well!)
If you question the WSJ's sources, then shoot them an email.
Garage: That's a quote from the article posted by Althouse.
Right. It would have been helpful to point out who in the GAB said it, and when.
I still have not heard anything about the arguments from the Schmitz and Chisholm, nor seen a link to their brief.
If we are going to find them unconstitutional, you would think we should at least read their argument first.
Tuesday will be interesting.
Please don't waste time finding links for "garage mahal" because he WANTS to violate the civil rights of American citizens. He APPROVES the ongoing violations.
All the Leftists in these comments hope to gain is power. Because they are, to a person, fascists at heart.
Mark:
What value would those briefs hold to anybody with legal training? Do you think briefs offered to a circuit court should overturn Supreme Court precedent?
You are a silly troll. At least be a fun and sometimes surprising troll. Your schtick is lame.
Birkel, there isn't a soul on this blog that is any Trollier than Thou.
See Stipulation, Wis. Club for Growth v. Myse for GAB settlement agreement with the Club in 2010 that it would not enforce parts of GAB Rule 1.28 which attempted to expand Wisconsin's definition of express advocacy.
Unknown:
Excellent turn of phrase.
Michael K said...
"Corporate Amerikka and blah, blah,blah."
The Obama voters must include one who gets up in the morning and so must have a job. Who knew ?
I just thought I'd steal a march on the usual lefty suspects. Judging from the gasping lefty hyperbole below I wasted my time.Who am I kidding. It's always time to parody a progg.
Why is it constitutional to punish coordination about issues of public policy?
Ask Birkel, he is the one defending such laws. I said that all campaign finance laws are unconstitutional. And, for that matter, all campaign laws in general are also unconstitutional. And now that I think about it some more, there should be no finance laws either.
It is all free speech, and Congress shall pass no law infringing upon it.
Rude-boy. I did your legal research for you. I don't expect payment, but a thank you would be nice.
Yes, Birkel, why would we want to even hear from the accused before finding them guilty?
Let us only look into the accusers argument and just move on to sentencing. Justice!
The "express advocacy" exception to the First Amendment was invented by the Supreme Court out of concern about "quid pro quo" corruption. Now in an ideal world, we would not have people saying to candidates: "Promise to support this bill and I'll give you $_____." But the attempt to prevent that creates the opportunity for the kind of corruption that you see in the John Doe investigations, in the prosecution of Delay, and in the innumerable regulatory burdens that are put on people who just want their side of the debate to be heard. The best way to deal with the situation is to enforce the First Amendment: "no law" means "no law"; it doesn't mean "no law except one I think is reasonable."
Mark:
Did you not see that the defendants have had multiple days in court? Please be so kind as to find a comment of mine that argues the prosecutors should not also enjoy their civil liberties -- even after attempting to deny others of the same.
I'm quite in favor of the defendant prosecutors receiving a fair trial for their civil rights violations. And I'm happy to note the prosecutors are free to speak of their trial, a right those same prosecutors would have denied to the people they illegally targeted for civil rights abuses.
Here's a hint: People are guilty of doing the bad thing as soon as they do the bad thing, in a cosmic sense. Whether they are ever found, prosecuted or punished is a separate matter entirely. I believe the prosecutors did the bad thing.
That those prosecutors should be given a fair, impartial hearing before a jury of their peers with adequate legal counsel to represent their interests is not debatable. And since I am not available to serve on the jury I need not withhold judgment on the prosecutors' bad actions.
"Rude-boy. I did your legal research for you. I don't expect payment, but a thank you would be nice."
I don't think he knows how to use The Googles. I'd like to thank you, however.
And I believe Walker did a bad thing. Why shut down the investigation that will charge him?
Does he not also deserve a day in court? This suit is attempting to stop that suit from being filed, subverting the process of justice.
Please, show me the defense brief for this case. As all proceedings have been in secret and unlike Club fpr Growth they don't leak their briefs .... there is no way any member of the public is aware of their complete defense.
It will be hilarious trying to read the excuses when Judge Randas decision is thrown out and the case is back on. Quite a corner that Walker has gotten painted into.
All campaign finance laws are unconstitutional. Any limits at all are a violation of the First Amendment.
Given that nobody is going to be kicked out of office for violating campaign finance law, they are pointless.
Obama shut down identification requirements for donations to his web site, meaning foreign money --- which is quite illegal --- could flow in. He had to turn that requirement OFF as it is on by default.
Is he going to be removed from office over it? Nope. Then the punishment can never be big enough to remove the temptation.
Judges and the Board have disagreed with you Mark.
The theory the prosectors wish to pursue is unconstitutional.
It's ok to be wrong.
Willful wrongness,however, is obnoxious.
Try harder.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा