The Real Problem Caperton v. Massey poses to WMC and the Right Wing Fronts

Some are missing the point when it comes to understanding the implications of Caperton v. Massey. This is the recent United States Supreme Court case where the majority ruled that campaign contributions cannot undermine the impartiality of the courts.

As those who follow our successful WMC Watch program know, we focused not so much on Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce inserting itself into judicial races as much as the fact that the public does not know who is paying or who is authorizing the "Willie Horton" style ads that are the characteristic of WMC and its clones.

Writing at Shark and Shepard, Rick Esenberg notes, "WMC rarely has a personal stake in a case and, putting that aside, there were very few cases pending or imminent at the time of the election in which it could be said to have a more general interest."

True, Rick. And very little of the $2-3 million that went into the Ziegler or Gableman judicial races came from WMC, or for that matter its WIsconsin members.

But the money came from somewhere. It came from some big players. For the U.S. Supreme Court decision to have any meaning, there must be disclosure as to the source of the funds. WMC, All Children Matter, Americans for Prosperity, all will have to reveal the funders.

Comments

[nonheroicvet]

Exactly - these guys are like vampires in that they fear daylight more than anything.

[R.J.]

Maybe it came from WEAC or trial lawyers assoc?

[buckyblue]

At least with WEAC and the Trial Lawyers Association you know what you're getting and where the money is coming from. As far as WEAC you know the money is local, which is the way it should be for all political contributions, IMO.

[R.J.]

Wisconsinites screwing Wisconsinites, that's the best rationalizing I've heard yet. Three cheers for gold-brick teachers and fat-cat lawyers.

[Irish Frog]

So Paul, does this ruling defuse the argument that money is free speech? That's essentially the argument made by those with money, that they can spend it however they like and have the right to lobby and support candidates however they like. While this ruling does not prevent the rich and powerful from trying to buy the court, it does say that if a justice is bought and paid for, they have to step down when ruling on cases involving their benefactors. It essentially avoids the problems with campaign finance reform, at least for the judiciary.

This becomes especially problematic for WMC, because while the organization pools the money from many companies in an effort to increase their lobbying power, they also pooled all conflicts of interest. If Epic had given money to Judge Gableman's campiagn, he would only have to recuse himself from cases involving Epic. But since many companies paid into WMC and their lobbying efforts, in any case that comes before the court that involves any member of WMC, both Justice Gableman and Justice Zeigler are required to recuse themselves. So by trying to buy these elections, WMC ensured that the judges would be most likely to rule in their favor are disqualified.

[B]

Paul, I'd like to know an itemized list of where the money for WMC Watch is coming from. If you demand accountability from others, you have to have the integrity and honesty to list your donors as well. Pot calling the kettle black?

[Mark]

So if a school choice issue comes before the Supreme Court, and WEAC files a brief in favor, or opposed, to the measure, will Abrahamson recuse herself?

Or does that not count because it's "local" money, or because it's NOT WMC.

Paul, fine job on tap dancing around the issues here. Sure, TECHNICALLY you don't buy ads, but to say you don't advocate for certain politicans is laughable.

[paul]

Irish Frog has a point, after all this is not about saying people cannot particapte in elections but about disclosure. Mark has a point as well, and yes if WEAC is a party to a case and was a significant contributor to a judge, there would have to recuse.

But is too bad that mark thinks that the differences between supporting and avocating for a candidate and contributing money is only technical.

[Mark]

So, Paul, you I will EXPECT you to be the FIRST to call for Abrahamson to step aside when any issue regarding school choice comes before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

And how are YOU to split between advocacy and contributing money? Have you EVER given money to a candidate and at the same breath supported them on your blog? How much "free" publicity are you giving them? To be fully objective on this, you should be happy to disclose your contribution list.

Paul, my problem with your post is that you continue to SCREAM that WMC is the problem, without EVER mentioning WEAC. IN the last election, WEAC contributed MORE than WMC. And Abrahamson won. Sure, the other candidate was very, very weak, but you can't turn a blind eye to WEAC's influence.