Scott Walker recall takes an unexpected turn.

[BrainGlutton]

More on the recall-funding:

MADISON, Wis. — Republican Gov. Scott Walker has raised about $31 million since he took office 17 months ago, including a remarkable $5.9 million in the last five weeks reported to Wisconsin regulators Tuesday.

The first-term Republican reported his latest donations a week before he faces Democratic Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett in a recall election that is also a rematch of the 2010 governor’s race. The state elections board predicted Tuesday that turnout would be between 60 percent and 65 percent, nearing levels normally seen in a presidential election.

Barrett, who was bound to fundraising limits of no more than $10,000 from any one donor, reported an impressive $3.4 million over the past five weeks. He raised about $4.2 million since joining the race at the end of March and had $1.5 million cash on hand.

In his 2010 campaign, Walker set the state’s fundraising record by bringing in $11 million. But he has nearly tripled that since by playing off his national conservative credentials as he rocketed to stardom after taking on public sector unions.

That fight, in which most Wisconsin public workers lost their collective bargaining rights, triggered the recall. Wisconsin law allowed Walker, as the subject of the recall, to raise unlimited amounts to pay for any debts he incurred over a nearly five-week period.

That has allowed him to rake in massive donations never before seen in Wisconsin, including $100,000 he reported receiving Sunday from Richard Pieper, the head of Pieper Electric in Milwaukee. He also reported receiving $50,000 from Richard Roberts, president of URL Pharma in Philadelphia and $25,000 from Mac Carney, CEO of Midwest Insurance Co. in Springfield, Ill., over the past week.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

Perhaps the story here isn’t how much Walker has received in campaign contribution, but how little Barrett has received in campaign contributions.

[Fear_Itself]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Perhaps the story here isn’t how much Walker has received in campaign contribution, but how little Barrett has received in campaign contributions.

Explain.

Is Barrett receiving smaller donations than previous Wisconsin campaigns for governor?

[elucidator]

No, no. You see, America is basically a center-right nation, and all real Americans agree with conservative principles. Its only the dastardly liberal media and voter fraud that makes them sorta kinda seem to lose elections.

[BigAppleBucky]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Perhaps the story here isn’t how much Walker has received in campaign contribution, but how little Barrett has received in campaign contributions.

Barrett is limited to $10K donations, unlike Walker. Even so, he has done fairly well, just not the massive right wing billionaire club support like Walker.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/walker-barrett-to-release-fundraising-totals-later-tuesday-gu5jgr9-155466225.html

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, his Democratic challenger, raised $3.1 million between April 24 and May 21, **an impressive total in a normal governor’s race **but still below Walker’s unprecedented fundraising. Barrett has raised $3.9 million since joining the race March 30 and had $1.5 million available for the last two weeks of the race.

The Republican governor has raised more than $30 million since January 2011 and he has about $1.6 million on hand. The majority has been from out of state.

[Bricker]

@BigAppleBucky

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/magazine/how-did-wisconsin-become-the-most-politically-divisive-place-in-america.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1337871606-Me9V5mAHoq4YzcSqHB5Udw

ALEC takeover of a state.

Dale Schultz is my hero.

My personal hope is that the divisiveness will abate after the recalls. If the Fitzwalkers get stung a bit, they may realize they can’t just walk over people and need to work with them.

As I indicated in threads at the time, while it’s true in general that the Wisconsin open meetings law requires 24 hours notice, one exception to that law is the meetings of legislative bodies themselves.

This question was debated extensively, despite the issue being clearly established in Wisconsin law.

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin ultimately ruled on the issue as I indicated. The open meetings law was not violated.

Why did your link’s text say:

“I said, ‘I just want to make you aware that this meeting is a violation of the open meetings law,’ ” Barca said he told Fitzgerald, who called the meeting less than two hours before. (Under Wisconsin law, a government body is generally required to give 24 hours notice to the public before it meets.)

That’s very deceptive, isn’t it? Since we all know now that while the law generally requires that, it doesn’t require it in this specific case. There was no such violation of law. Yet the story doesn’t point that out.

Why do you suppose that is?

[BigT]

@Bricker

As I indicated in threads at the time, while it’s true in general that the Wisconsin open meetings law requires 24 hours notice, one exception to that law is the meetings of legislative bodies themselves.

This question was debated extensively, despite the issue being clearly established in Wisconsin law.

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin ultimately ruled on the issue as I indicated. The open meetings law was not violated.

Why did your link’s text say:

That’s very deceptive, isn’t it? Since we all know now that while the law generally requires that, it doesn’t require it in this specific case. There was no such violation of law. Yet the story doesn’t point that out.

Why do you suppose that is?

How does the answer to this question affect the article or the merits of the arguments made therein in any way? Quit with the dishonest debating tactics of picking apart stuff that has no relevance to create the illusion that you’ve actually argued against it.

[elucidator]

And this just in, from our good friends at ThinkProgress

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/05/30/492317/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-transfers-160000-in-campaign-contributions-to-mysterious-legal-defense-fund/

(Warning! Lefty site! Tighty rightys are advised to proceed only with Shields Up!)

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) is diverting campaign donations to bankroll his legal defense fund. For what charges does he need a legal defense? He won’t say.
Walker’s latest campaign finance report reveals that he recently made two transfers totaling $100,000 toward a fund meant to protect him from a “John Doe” corruption investigation…

[FE3O4ENAIL]

@elucidator

And this just in, from our good friends at ThinkProgress

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/05/30/492317/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-transfers-160000-in-campaign-contributions-to-mysterious-legal-defense-fund/

(Warning! Lefty site! Tighty rightys are advised to proceed only with Shields Up!)

Quick question for ya. Who started the John Doe investigation?

[FE3O4ENAIL]

A little help.

Barrett-Walker Debate: John Doe Investigation

Scott Walker said:

“The facts clearly show that” his administration in Milwaukee County took swift action against any impropriety.
“This investigation started because my office asked for it nearly two years ago,” he added.

[BrainGlutton]

@FE3O4ENAIL

A little help.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/154288165.html#!page=2&pageSize=10&sort=newestfirst
Scott Walker said:

“The facts clearly show that” his administration in Milwaukee County took swift action against any impropriety.
“This investigation started because my office asked for it nearly two years ago,” he added.

Wait, this investigation was started by Milwaukee County DA John Chisholm in 2010. And a defense attorney recently unsuccessfully begged the State DOJ to take it over.

The state Department of Justice announced Wednesday that it will not get involved in the ongoing John Doe investigation of aides and staff to Gov. Scott Walker.

The announcement came an hour or so after Paul Bucher, a defense attorney, released a letter he had sent to the Justice Department requesting an investigation into the Milwaukee County district attorney’s office and its handling of the John Doe investigation.

<snip>

Bucher’s letter, which you can read here, states that “this John Doe has consistently leaked like a sieve, and has blatantly abused the rights and reputations of individuals who have no way of defending themselves without violating the secrecy orders surrounding the investigation.”

<snip>

Milwaukee County prosecutors have leaked no stories regarding the John Doe investigation to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which has broken every story on developments in the 23-month probe.

Last September, sources told the Journal Sentinel that Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen had been asked to assist in the investigation of Walker, his former and current aides. But Van Hollen’s office declined, sources told the Journal Sentinel.

<snip>

Walker has repeatedly declined to criticize the investigation. On Tuesday, the first-term Republican governor said he and his attorneys were cooperating with the probe.

Bucher said in his letter that he had previously sent a letter to Judge Neal Nettesheim, who is presiding over the John Doe. In that letter, Bucher said he had raised concerns that 43 people in the district attorney’s office had signed petitions to recall Walker.

However, prosecutors overseeing the long-running Doe investigation weren’t among those who signed, said Chief Deputy District Attorney Kent Lovern.

Media Trackers, a conservative research group, has alleged that 43 staffers in the district attorney’s office had signed the Walker recall. They said 20 attorneys in the office and 23 secretaries and support staff had signed the petitions.

<snip>

Bucher declined to confirm or deny he was representing one of more people who have been involved in the ongoing Doe probe. But Bucher, a defense attorney since losing his bid for the Republican nomination for attorney general in 2006, has represented a client in the John Doe investigation, the Journal Sentinel has learned.

Asked why he had written the letter, Bucher replied, “I’m a citizen interested in fairness and the outcome of this process."

<snip>

Bucher alleged in his letter that the announcement of charges against former Walker aides “appear in some cases to have been made with an eye toward political timing. This appearance has allowed some to call into question whether this investigation is a legitimate exercise of prosecutorial activity and discretion or whether this is merely a partisan political witch hunt.”

Now Walker says the investigation started because he asked Chisholm to start it?! Is that what he’s claiming?!

[BrainGlutton]

Here’s a story on the investigation from the lefty Mother Jones, with a timeline of events.

UPDATE 3, Friday, March 9, 5:40 p.m.: Gov. Scott Walker announced the creation of his own legal defense fund in connection with the John Doe probe that has so far resulted in criminal charges against former Walker aides when he was Milwaukee County executive. (For details on those charges, see above.)

Walker’s creation of a legal defense fund is the strongest sign yet that the governor may be directly implicated in the ongoing investigation, led by the Milwaukee County district attorney. As WisPolitics.com notes, Wisconsin law says that individuals may start a legal defense fund only if they’re under investigation or being charged for violating state campaign finance or election laws. Under state law, Walker can’t ask for contributions to the legal defense fund, but he can transfer campaign donations to the defense fund if the donor okays the transfer. In January, Walker’s recall campaign said it had raised $4.5 million between December 11 and January 17, and that it had more than $2.6 million on hand.

Here’s Walker’s full announcement:

"For nearly two years, Milwaukee County officials have been examining issues related to former employees of the County. I have repeatedly pledged my cooperation with that inquiry. I also made it clear that no public money has been used, or will be used, to pay for the attorneys needed to review documents and assist me in cooperating.

“To fulfill my commitment, I have today formed a legal fund to pay for the expenses incurred in cooperating with the inquiry. The fund will operate in accordance with the Wisconsin law authorizing these accounts, which was passed almost 30 years ago.”

Michael Maistelman, a Milwaukee attorney who represents Democratic and Republican clients, says that from his reading of state law and Walker’s announcement, “One can only draw the conclusion that he’s being investigated or he’s being prosecuted.” However, Ciara Matthews, a spokeswoman for Walker’s recall campaign, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: “We reiterate that Gov. Walker has been told that he is not a target of this investigation.”

[Reginald_Hobbes]

@BigAppleBucky

Barrett is limited to $10K donations, unlike Walker.

Wrong. Recall fundraising provision had broad support

Indeed, while Democrats have slammed the provision, the same state law also allows committees seeking the recall of an official to raise funds without worrying about the normal limits - and Democratic state senators facing recalls had the same chance in the summer of 2011.

Walker cannot use donations above the normal $10,000 limit for campaign expenses during the actual election period - from March 30 through June 5. He has to use the money for expenses related to challenging the recall drive, which ran from Nov. 15 to March 30.

So if he raised more over-the-limit funds than his expenses for TV ads and mailers during the recall drive, he will have to return the money or give it to other officials’ campaign funds or to charity. That accounting has not yet been done.

Contributions the governor takes in now during the recall election period have to be within the usual limits.

So, both sides could have accepted unlimited $ during the recall period, and both are currently subject to the $10k limit during the election period.

[FE3O4ENAIL]

." However, Ciara Matthews, a spokeswoman for Walker’s recall campaign, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: “We reiterate that Gov. Walker has been told that he is not a target of this investigation.”
After a year and a half, no charges filed against Walker. What are the chances that any are filed in the future?

[Chronos]

Apparently pretty high, or he wouldn’t be looking to fund his defense against them.

[BrainGlutton]

@Chronos

Apparently pretty high, or he wouldn’t be looking to fund his defense against them.

Well, he calls it “a legal fund to pay for the expenses incurred in cooperating with the inquiry,” but you don’t need to be a lawyer to parse that. In fact, as I understand it, in some English-speaking countries (the UK, maybe others), “is assisting the police with their inquiries” is a standard and transparent euphemism for “is under arrest.”

[FE3O4ENAIL]

@Chronos

Apparently pretty high, or he wouldn’t be looking to fund his defense against them.

Na, it’s called getting your ducks in a row, he has the money available now, so he funds his defense.
If his emails are so needed by the investigation, why did they not subpoena them?

[BigAppleBucky]

@Bricker

As I indicated in threads at the time, while it’s true in general that the Wisconsin open meetings law requires 24 hours notice, one exception to that law is the meetings of legislative bodies themselves.

This question was debated extensively, despite the issue being clearly established in Wisconsin law.

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin ultimately ruled on the issue as I indicated. The open meetings law was not violated.

Why did your link’s text say:

That’s very deceptive, isn’t it? Since we all know now that while the law generally requires that, it doesn’t require it in this specific case. There was no such violation of law. Yet the story doesn’t point that out.

Why do you suppose that is?

1. The state Supreme Court packed with ALEC seleted judges? The whole corruption of the state started when outside rightwing groups started massive funding in Wisconsin’s court elections.

2. Practice in the state legislature since inception and up until the issue was litigated last year was the 24 hour hour rule, so the spirit, if not the letter, of the law was violated.

[BrainGlutton]

@FE3O4ENAIL

Na, it’s called getting your ducks in a row, he has the money available now, so he funds his defense.
If his emails are so needed by the investigation, why did they not subpoena them?

How do you know they didn’t? In the Wisconsin legal system, John Doe proceedings are very hush-hush, hence the name.

[BrainGlutton]

@FE3O4ENAIL

Quick question for ya. Who started the John Doe investigation?

John T. Chisholm, DA of Milwaukee County. And not even you believe it was because Walker asked him to do it.