Just in case you didn’t hear about this – and if you get the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, chances are you didn’t – a Dane County judge has ruled that Rep. Mark Green has $467,000 in illegal special interest money in his campaign, and he broke the law.
Judging from past experience, the Green campaign defense will probably run something like this: “The partisan judge is the real criminal here, and this only proves that Jim Doyle is corrupt and up is in fact down.”
It’s sad and predictable, and also a good indication of what kind of leader Mark Green would be. It’s always everyone else’s fault, never his own.
I live in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI with my wife Jen, our daughter Emerson, and sons Carter and Colton.
Yeah, one would never have predicted the judge would rule in favor of Jim Doyle.
When are public offices going to be run by men and women actually interested in serving the public?
The “blame the judge” excuse – in under an hour even! You win the kewpie doll!
Just so I’m getting your argument straight: anytime anyone rules against Mark Green, they’re automatically tossed in the “corruptable public official” category?
You can cut the childish sarcasm.
Just so I’m getting your argument straight: anytime anyone rules against Mark Green, they’re automatically tossed in the “corruptable public official” category?
No, that’s not my argument … try to see the situtation from the outside perspective.
1) Elections board votes the day AFTER Mr. Republican transfers money from fed fund to state fund. (Tom Barrett anybody!?!?)
2) A completely non-partisian election board votes party line (Dems and Repubs). There happen to be more Dems on the board so the ruling is in favor of the Dem. candidate. (BTW, This ruling is like giving a traffic ticket to a driver for running a stop sign that was put up the day after the driver went through the intersection).
3) We find out the lawyer for the Dem governer convinced three said members of the board to vote the money is illegal.
4) Mr. Republican appeals to the courts to rule on the legality
5) Mr. Judge, appointed by Mr. Democratic candidate, rules in favor of Mr. Democratic candidate.
6) *some* people don’t see BS in any of this
Our system is fu**ed up.
And if Jim Doyle hasn’t proved himself corrupt to you by now, you must not be paying attention.
Did you know that the first judge assigned to the case was NOT appointed by Doyle, but Green asked for a substitution?
You may have missed it, but the law was changed between when the Barrett ruling was made and this one.
As for childish, I’d say it’s more of a childish act to close your eyes and pretend none of this is happening, or that it’s the world against Mark Green. It’s not. Your entire defense here is that it’s everyone else’s fault other than Mark Green and his campaign, that’s what’s childish. How about taking some responsibility for your actions instead of just continually casting blame on all the mean bad people who don’t agree with ‘you’?
Did you know that the first judge assigned to the case was NOT appointed by Doyle, but Green asked for a substitution?
I did not know that .. that’s interesting information. Do you know who was the first judge assigned?
You may have missed it, but the law was changed between when the Barrett ruling was made and this one.
Oh brother .. no I DIDN’T miss it … I know exactly when the law changed … the day BEFORE Mark Green transferred his PAC money.
Now you’re debating childishness????
Dan – I see you are completely over the top as you aren’t even able to address the points provided. I am not sure why you think I am defending Green or saying it’s somebody else’s fault. You fail to see the situation for what it is.
I would have to contend that you have proven to be somebody that has closed his eyes moreso than I. You have a genuine interest in Democrats – I have no interest in either of the parties, only provided counter points for you so you can digest the information see there might be a truth not as you see it. I am not defending Mark Green. I have a genuine interest is a system where GOOD people get elected and represent the people. Our current system, in which you have become part of, is not interested in serving the people’s interest(s), but gaining power.
You live in a world where the media is against the Dems and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is against the Dems and everybody is against the Dems. There are righties that believe the same thing … that the media is against them and the newspapers are against them, etc. How can it be both? How can the “righties” think there is some left wing conspiracy and the “lefties” can read the same newspapers and think there is a right wing conspiracy against them?? It fails logic and the only conclusion is that those types of people see only what the want to see. You need to start looking at situations objectively and not through the eyes of someone who thinks Dems are wonderful people and Repubs are evil mean people.
It’s ironic because a while ago, you said, “I hope you don’t hold it against me that I’m a Democrat if I choose to run for office”. (or something like that), but you hold it against a person if s/he runs as a Republican. Ask yourself – would you ever vote for a Republican?
Now, take this rant as crazy shit from some douchebag, childish, Mark Green lover if you want – that’s great. Some day you are going to wake up and realize I was the one person who was trying to help you become more objective and not fall down the trap of partisianship.
You know me .. and I’m surprised you think I have such ill intentioned posts.
Oh brother .. no I DIDN’T miss it … I know exactly when the law changed … the day BEFORE Mark Green transferred his PAC money.
LOL … little slip there .. day AFTER Mark Green transferred his PAC money. *whistles hoping nobody noticed*
Sorry, I think the ‘childish’ comment was taken wrongly and I probably shouldn’t have said anything at all. Text isn’t the best translator of meaning sometimes, as we both know…
That said, I just want to point out that’s not the law I’m talking about. The law in this case I’m talking about is the federal law (FECA) that was enacted previously to January 2005 when the elections board made their ‘change’ which rendered the Green money illegal.
Federal campaign finance laws state:
“Federal officeholders and candidates are banned from soliciting, receiving, directing, transferring, and spending soft money in connection with any local, state, or federal election.”
That was enacted back in 2002 and is the basis of what made Green’s transfer illegal. He took federally raised ‘soft’ money and transfered it to his state campaign. Wisconsin didn’t have a law at that time that enforced this provision, but federal law trumps state law in this case, and when the state elections board had their meeting in Jan. 2005, they were effectivley just enforcing an existing federal law that was on the books.
I mean, it’s kind of hard to follow, I agree. But this “Green made the transfer the day before the law was enacted” defense is comptelely crazy because the law he broke has been on the federal books since 2002, even if WI didn’t catch up with that till 2005.
Just an analogy:
It’s like if a federal law were passed to (lets just say) outlaw abortion starting last Sept 1. Even though Alabama didn’t have a law last week that expressely outlawed abortion as well, they’re still bound by it.
Anyone who got an abortion under this scenerio would be breaking the law regardless of the fact that someone else got an abortion 5 years ago, when the federal law was different.
Alabama would have the discretion to enact it’s own law outlawing abortions at any point after Sept 1 to come in compliance with federal law (and to keep the justice process in their own state, a whole other issue), with certain modifications as long as they complied with legal bounds of the federal law.
Erf, I should have just written one long post, but I keep thinking of other things :)
One last point about judges. 99.9% of them at this level are honorable and just people who do an excellent job and rule within the bounds of the law. I think it’s unfair to hammer on this particular judge simply because he was appointed by a Democrat.
The fact is that judges have a very small set of rules/laws that bind them. It’s very very unusual for a judge to go outside those bounds on any issues, but especially public ones like this, for the simple fact that they’re putting their reputation and career on the line, and again, have a very small but very finite set of rules to which they are bound.
That’s the whole purpose of law after all, to apply a set of (hopefully) impartial rules to circumstances that can leave little room for discussion or appeal. (if the rules/laws are written well)
In other words, it’s not like this judge or any other judge can just go and make shit up and rule however they way on the cases that come before them. Like I said, most judges are excellent and just people who can be counted on to be fair and impartial in times like this.
Quick note:
Dane County Circuit Judge Michael Nowakowski was originally meant to hear the case…
Wikipedia (for what it’s worth) states the change in judge was due to the schedule of the judge being full.
Also, if the committee, made up of non-lawyers, was following the letter of the law when they made their decision… Why did their legal counsel advise against it?
I’m talking about the state election board legal counsel, not the “other one”
Hold up one second, though. There is the possibility that a judge’s decision might be affected by politics. Not saying that’s the case here at all, but it is always in the realm of possibility.
I agree that most judges are just and fair. But look back 6 years and, if your blog had existed, I imagine you might have had a post condemning certain members of the Supreme Court for helping “their guy” with an election problem. And you would have been right in saying so.
The advantage that judges have is their incredibly high retention/reelection rates. I notice that in WI judges serve 6-year terms, and this judge must be in the 1st or 2nd year of his. That gives him 4 or 5 more years for people to forget about him (hypothetically) helping a friend before he has to run (probably unopposed) in an unadvertised race where incumbents almost never lose.
Not that there’s any impropriety, but it can’t be ruled out completely.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/statefed.shtml
This statement:
Applicable state laws restricting transfers received by a state campaign committee from a federal candidate’s committee (AOs 1993-10, 1986-5 and 1985-2).
This would seem to preempt the statements above about McCain Feingolds (AKA BCRA) jurisdiction. It would appear that as long as the state elections law allowed such a transfer, and the proper paperwork was completed, the transfer would be legal.
The board itself, interpreting STATE law, would be in charge of the decision then. Which makes it even sicker that their decision was written by a political opponent and not the board itself. Furthermore:
http://www.bootsandsabers.com/images/uploads/SEB_Emails1.pdf
First line of that document you linked to Chris:
“Some information presented in this publication has been modified by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA).”