Read the Guardian article on John Doe. READ IT ALL! And pass it along to your buddies.
I'll say more as things develop here, but here are a couple of my favorite passages from the John Doe docs.
First of all, if Club for Growth is an "independent social welfare organization," then why does Walker say in August 2011 "did I send out thank you notes to our [501] c4 donors? (emphasis added). "OUR" 501 c-4? Hmmmm....
Oh, and if you needed more proof that Walker was a main part of this laundering operation, take a look at the second check down, which was written to Wisconsin Club for Growth, with a nice memo line of "Because Scott Walker asked."
Yeah, I think SCOTUS might have to do a little overrule here and open John Doe back up. Unless Kennedy was lying in Citizens United when he said
With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters
- Justice Anthony Kennedy
But when a fake charity like Wisconsin Club for Growth is used to hide those donors, like Walker and WisGOP did in John Doe, then that idea blows up. And with Kennedy expressing concerns over loopholes that are preventing disclosure and eliminating the wall of separation that is supposed to exist between "independent" organizations and political candidates, there's no better case than John Doe that can be used to start to build that wall back up, and give citizens the right to know.
And once John Doe's re-opened, then DROP THE BOMB on all involved for tax fraud, money-laundering and excessive campaign contributions.
Lots of good reading in those Google Docs. It's going to be difficult to deny coordination. No wonder they fought so hard to bury this and destroy all related documents. And our dity Wisconsin Supreme Court was complicit. Did you read the Prosser files?
ReplyDeleteA little. Democurmudgeon has good info on the Prosser docs where he promises to "repay them for their help." No wonder why that guy called it quits.
DeleteAnd I bet there's a lot more since 2012 that we haven't seen (cough-WEDC-cough)
Prosser could be forcibly recused by the SCOTUS by the Caperton precedent from rehearing the JD shut-down case, but his Walker-appointed successor Kelly could not.
DeleteGeoff- But any rehearing of John Doe would happen after any prosecutions that would happen after SCOTUS re-opens the case.
DeleteThat's one of many reasons the Wis Supreme Court decision was so sketchy- it made up reasons to stop the investigation before charges were ever filed. I would think SCOTUS would say that was premature (along with being bullshit), and it would free the way for the bomb to be dropped on Walker and O'Keefe and these other crooks.
And don't forget the funny business with the "missing" ballots in Brookfield under Kathy Nicolaus's watch, which miraculously resulted in a Prosser win.
ReplyDelete