Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Supreme Court could be shorthanded

Congressman Mark Green is eager to have the State Supreme Court decide his appeal of the State Elections Board ruling that he has $467,000 in illegal special interest money in his campaign.

Although it is a non-partisan court, the political affiliations of the justices are common knowledge. There are four Republicans and three Democrats, or three conservatives and three liberals, if you prefer.

But who will hear the case, if the court agrees to take it?

Justice Jon Wilcox's own campaign for the court was fined $60,000 by the elections board -- the biggest such penalty in state history.

As a campaign lawbreaker who's had a run-in with the State Elections Board himself, Wilcox, a former Republican legislator, should recuse himself from the case.

Carrie Lynch says Wilcox isn't the only one who should refrain from participating.

UPDATE: Wisconsin Democracy Campaign files a Federal Elections Commission complaint, wants all $1.3-million returned.

6 Comments:

At 4:27 PM, Blogger GWC shadow said...

Oh by the way Bill, this is what the House of Representatives code of ethics says about the Federal campaign laws and about using ones own Federal campaign money.

http://www.house.gov/ethics/Campaign_booklet.htm#_Toc528993025

Other Permissible Uses of Campaign Funds.

As noted above, the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C. §439a) generally allows Members to donate campaign funds to any entity of the kinds described in §170(c) of the Tax Code – including a charitable or educational organization, or a governmental entity – provided that there is no conversion to personal use through the donation (see below). That statute also allows the transfer of campaign funds "without limitation to any national, State, or local committee of any political party." Thus if otherwise lawful, campaign funds may be transferred to another candidate, or invested for use in a future political campaign, provided, again, that there is no conversion of funds to personal use.

"WITHOUT LIMITATIONS". My understanding is that FEDERAL trumps any state law so this will be an easy victory for Green. The end of Doyle and the Greater Wisconsin Committee is near folks. Let not your heart be troubled. The Doyle dirty trick will be soon over.

 
At 4:55 PM, Blogger Xoff said...

Maybe you could volunteer to help Green with the legal case. It hasn't been going too well so far.

 
At 5:01 PM, Blogger dan said...

Doyle will lose if the battlefield is corruption and ethics.

 
At 5:21 PM, Blogger Other Side said...

This is gwc_shadow's profile:

I am an Christian American taxpayer. Veteran of the US Navy. Sunday school teacher, Chairmen of the School Board for a Fox Valley Parichol school. A father, husband, and son that has been born and raised in the Fox Valley.


Hmmm ... not only is he more than one chairperson, but he's on a school board ... very "parichol."

Since he can't see his way to using proper grammar and spelling, one need not take his facts as factual.

With people like this in the opposition, the elections should be a slam dunk this year.

 
At 5:40 PM, Blogger billy pilgrim said...

I thought the idea of Federalism was that States could create their own laws, as long as they do not directly contradict federal rules.

The 'otherwise lawful' part is more pertinent in this case than 'without limitations'. Since the Wisconsin Elections Board instituted a rule making the contributions illegal, they would not qualify as lawful.

which is what the judge decided.

 
At 6:10 PM, Blogger George Roberts said...

Thanks for the laugh, Other Side -- and GWC Shadow can be thankful that it is no longer legal to have a literacy test for voting.

Nor is it necessary to have all those modifiers in front of the term "taxpayer," since non-Christians' money is just as good . . . and so is the money of the many non-citizens who are paying income taxes, property taxes, Social Security taxes, etc.

So let's help him out. The adjective "American" would be more appropriate modifying, say, "veteran" (and he can add the adjective "proud" before either, as all Americans are proud of our veterans). The adjective "Christian" would be more appropriate modifying "Sunday School teacher."

It is too bad that he didn't say of which school he is a graduate, as that would be where to place the adjective "illiterate." That he is one tells us, as you say, not to rely on his reading of the law.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home