The Wisconsin Governmental Accountability Board (GAB), Wisconsin's election board, and John Doe officials have effectively acceded to a corrupt federal judge's ruling that was expected to be overturned in federal appellate court in a bizarre legal move yesterday.
U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa (corrupted in service to the Koch brothers, Federalist Society, the Bradley Center; nominally of the Eastern District of Wisconsin) issued an ruling in mid-October declaring Wisconsin's campaign finance regulations—prohibiting coordination among political candidates and dark money 'issue' groups—violate the First Amendment and henceforth are unenforceable.
The case is Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates, Inc., v. Thomas Barland (Case No. 14-C-1222).
Randa faced a judicial slap-down and possible ethical investigations in federal appellate court so now all parties have decided to cover up for Randa by moving the case to state court.
The GAB and John Doe officials have reached an agreement with Citizens ... moving the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, (Marley, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel) and narrowing Randa's injunction of Wisconsin campaign finance law under Randa's novel and contrived theory of the First Amendment.
Partisan Republicans enjoy a four-to-three majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which has lost legitimacy as an impartial judicial body.
When the rightwing group, Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates, filed its suit in early October, it gamed the court paperwork so Randa would hear the case, which happened and Randa subsequently fast-tracked the case, instead of waiting until after Election Day (Marley, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).
"Judge Randa first made news in May when he issued an extraordinary ruling halting the criminal campaign finance investigation into Governor Scott Walker's campaign, declaring that candidates and 'dark money' nonprofits have a First Amendment right to coordinate over ads that don't expressly tell viewers how to vote (and ordering the destruction of evidence). That ruling was reversed by a unanimous decision from the 7th Circuit in September, with conservative jurist Frank Easterbrook calling Randa's decision 'imprudent,' 'unnecessary,' and an 'abuse of discretion,'" notes Brendan Fischer of PR Watch.
Randa's October 14 ruling devastating Wisconsin's campaign finance regulations was issued just weeks before the November 4 election in a clear violation of the Purcell doctrine employed by courts as a guiding principle that election law is not changed close to an election, and certainly not before voting had already begun as is the case in Wisconsin where 1,000s of absentee votes were already cast when Randa issued his ruling in mid October.
The effect of the ruling was to legalize coordination among candidates and dark money, allowing Scott Walker's campaign some three weeks to conspire with whomever it chose.
Randa's ruling, not coincidentally, also would absolve Scott Walker of apparent crimes as indicated by documents released in the John Doe probe that show Walker is suspected to have been at the center of a massive "criminal scheme" Marley, Bice and Glauber, (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).
Nov 7, 2014
DNR Ups Rhetoric Blasting Judge's Ruling of 'Massive Regulatory Failure'
Update: See also Judge: Contaminated wells part of 'massive regulatory failure' (Bergquist, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)
"The DNR operates all of its permit programs to meet all requirements of current laws and rules," writes Michael Bruhn, Director of Policy and External Relations for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, in an November 3 email.
Bruhn writes his comment in an email exchange with Wisconsin clean water activists and Greg Farnham of Juneau, Wisconsin following an administrative law ruling by Judge Jeffrey Boldt in October reading that "massive regulatory failure" at the DNR led to groundwater contamination in northeastern Wisconsin and that the DNR should in effect do its job to prevent continued water contamination by liquid cow manure. (Seely, WisconsinWatch)
Farnham and citizens around the state would like to see more such rulings as well as federal intervention by the EPA, as Wisconsin waters are becoming increasingly toxified by a new form of Big Agriculture and Dairy farming: Concentrated (Confined) Agricultural Feeding Operations or CAFOs.
The DNR has been trying to deflect political and legal blame for the massive regulatory failure, exemplified by DNR's spokesman William Cosh who tried to absolve the DNR even after the ad law opinion was published.
Writes Farnham to the DNR's spokesman William Cosh in a Nov. 2 email: "In my opinion your statements are beyond the pale and further evidence of the mutation of the department [Wisconsin DNR] from a protector of natural resources for the benefit of all citizens of the state to a cabal of the rich, powerful and well-connected agricultural lobbies."
Meanwhile, DNR Secretary Cathy Stepp has taken to talk radio and blogging criticizing the October ruling as "editorializing." (Rowen, The Political Environment)
Writes Farnham to the DNR's Bruhn: "Bill Cosh's attempt to pin the tail of responsibility for regulatory failure on his targeted donkey - the county health department - strikes me as egregiously irresponsible."
Rather it is misguided and dangerous state policy that has resulted in massive regulatory failure -- a failure which is turning our rural landscape into giant septic tanks for livestock manure, polluting our groundwater and adversely affecting the lives of rural residents and the well being of their communities."
The truth is the clean and safe water activists' effect on the November general election—despite widespread popularity of their position—was nil, to the puzzlement of many around Wisconsin.
Writes Don Ystad of Rome, Wisconsin: "(DNR bureaucrats) spin [the Boldt decision] just like the Ag lobbyists. These are supposed to be the people protecting our environment from those who would abuse it. DNR enforcement is down 67 percent in the past four years, 2013 set records for pollution of waterways in our state, and 2014 is on pace to exceed even that."
No source contacted for this piece is considering giving up.
"The DNR operates all of its permit programs to meet all requirements of current laws and rules," writes Michael Bruhn, Director of Policy and External Relations for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, in an November 3 email.
Bruhn writes his comment in an email exchange with Wisconsin clean water activists and Greg Farnham of Juneau, Wisconsin following an administrative law ruling by Judge Jeffrey Boldt in October reading that "massive regulatory failure" at the DNR led to groundwater contamination in northeastern Wisconsin and that the DNR should in effect do its job to prevent continued water contamination by liquid cow manure. (Seely, WisconsinWatch)
Farnham and citizens around the state would like to see more such rulings as well as federal intervention by the EPA, as Wisconsin waters are becoming increasingly toxified by a new form of Big Agriculture and Dairy farming: Concentrated (Confined) Agricultural Feeding Operations or CAFOs.
The DNR has been trying to deflect political and legal blame for the massive regulatory failure, exemplified by DNR's spokesman William Cosh who tried to absolve the DNR even after the ad law opinion was published.
Writes Farnham to the DNR's spokesman William Cosh in a Nov. 2 email: "In my opinion your statements are beyond the pale and further evidence of the mutation of the department [Wisconsin DNR] from a protector of natural resources for the benefit of all citizens of the state to a cabal of the rich, powerful and well-connected agricultural lobbies."
Meanwhile, DNR Secretary Cathy Stepp has taken to talk radio and blogging criticizing the October ruling as "editorializing." (Rowen, The Political Environment)
Writes Farnham to the DNR's Bruhn: "Bill Cosh's attempt to pin the tail of responsibility for regulatory failure on his targeted donkey - the county health department - strikes me as egregiously irresponsible."
Rather it is misguided and dangerous state policy that has resulted in massive regulatory failure -- a failure which is turning our rural landscape into giant septic tanks for livestock manure, polluting our groundwater and adversely affecting the lives of rural residents and the well being of their communities."
The truth is the clean and safe water activists' effect on the November general election—despite widespread popularity of their position—was nil, to the puzzlement of many around Wisconsin.
Writes Don Ystad of Rome, Wisconsin: "(DNR bureaucrats) spin [the Boldt decision] just like the Ag lobbyists. These are supposed to be the people protecting our environment from those who would abuse it. DNR enforcement is down 67 percent in the past four years, 2013 set records for pollution of waterways in our state, and 2014 is on pace to exceed even that."
No source contacted for this piece is considering giving up.
Nov 6, 2014
No Mandate for Scott Walker
When President Obama won 52 percent (to 45 percent for Romney) of Wisconsin voters in 2012 with a 73 percent turnout (Washington Post), Republicans complained about the surprising "urban" vote.
Urban means black in Republican lexicon, hence Obama garnered no mandate.
In 2014, Scott Walker has discerned a mandate from the fact that he won 52 percent of the 57 percent turnout of voters, or roughly 28.5 of the Wisconsin electorate (compared to Obama's 36 percent).
Moreover, that Wisconsin Republicans kept their majorities in the gerrymandered legislative districts demands Scott Walker be "even more aggressive" (Spicuzza, Wisconsin State Journal) in pursuing an agenda that 72 percent of the Wisconsin electorate rejected.
This is more than spin from Walker. This is a continuation of the con game that Walker is running on Wisconsin, backed by a corrupt U.S. District judge (Rudolph Randa) who never learned (or doesn't care) what abuse of discretion means.
It is also more confirmation that most people think government is run in the interests of a few, anti-social special interests who want to rig democracy.
Scott Walker doesn't believe he has a mandate any more than he thinks he could mount a credible run for president.
What he can do is run Wisconsin into the ground in the service of special interests, and leave behind a polluted environment and a diminished public education system, among other targets of the GOP's sociopathic wrecking ball.
Urban means black in Republican lexicon, hence Obama garnered no mandate.
In 2014, Scott Walker has discerned a mandate from the fact that he won 52 percent of the 57 percent turnout of voters, or roughly 28.5 of the Wisconsin electorate (compared to Obama's 36 percent).
Moreover, that Wisconsin Republicans kept their majorities in the gerrymandered legislative districts demands Scott Walker be "even more aggressive" (Spicuzza, Wisconsin State Journal) in pursuing an agenda that 72 percent of the Wisconsin electorate rejected.
This is more than spin from Walker. This is a continuation of the con game that Walker is running on Wisconsin, backed by a corrupt U.S. District judge (Rudolph Randa) who never learned (or doesn't care) what abuse of discretion means.
It is also more confirmation that most people think government is run in the interests of a few, anti-social special interests who want to rig democracy.
Scott Walker doesn't believe he has a mandate any more than he thinks he could mount a credible run for president.
What he can do is run Wisconsin into the ground in the service of special interests, and leave behind a polluted environment and a diminished public education system, among other targets of the GOP's sociopathic wrecking ball.
Obama Vows Action as GOP Makes Plans for Plutocrats
Blanket Amnesty for Immigrants Now
Faced with dealing with Republicans who have obstructed the economic recovery from the Bush-Cheney great recession, President Obama made plain yesterday that "what I’m not going to do is just wait" for Republicans to work for the country instead of the Republican Party's economic royalists.
The signal could not have been clearer.
Obama "swiftly defied(GOP) objections by vowing to bypass Congress and use his executive authority to change the nation’s immigration system." (Hirschfeld Davis, Baker; NYT)
Welcome news indeed.
The president can begin by issuing comprehensive amnesty for millions of undocumented immigrants, for starters. Student loan forgiveness. Accelerated DoJ action for civil rights for women and minorities. Much can be done.
Executive authority is broad under the "unitary executive," just ask Republicans.
If racists in the Republican Party object, perhaps they can set up a whites-only homeland somewhere, as here in 2014 segregation remains a GOP policy objective.
Republicans in Congress may choose to begin impeachment proceedings. Excellent.
They may decide to shut down the government or refuse to fund the government. Countermeasures exist, and public opinion and rational actors will rapidly remove another GOP attempt to smash the foundations of the American economy, though Ted Cruz would be all for it.
Impeachment would put on display in a manner political campaigns cannot, the destructive and anti-American objectives of the Republican Party and the whacko theories on their plutocrats.
The results are predictable, ala 1998, the last time the Republicans began impeachment proceedings because the rightwing didn't like President Clinton getting so chummy with ethnic minorities.
Faced with dealing with Republicans who have obstructed the economic recovery from the Bush-Cheney great recession, President Obama made plain yesterday that "what I’m not going to do is just wait" for Republicans to work for the country instead of the Republican Party's economic royalists.
The signal could not have been clearer.
Obama "swiftly defied(GOP) objections by vowing to bypass Congress and use his executive authority to change the nation’s immigration system." (Hirschfeld Davis, Baker; NYT)
Welcome news indeed.
The president can begin by issuing comprehensive amnesty for millions of undocumented immigrants, for starters. Student loan forgiveness. Accelerated DoJ action for civil rights for women and minorities. Much can be done.
Executive authority is broad under the "unitary executive," just ask Republicans.
If racists in the Republican Party object, perhaps they can set up a whites-only homeland somewhere, as here in 2014 segregation remains a GOP policy objective.
Republicans in Congress may choose to begin impeachment proceedings. Excellent.
They may decide to shut down the government or refuse to fund the government. Countermeasures exist, and public opinion and rational actors will rapidly remove another GOP attempt to smash the foundations of the American economy, though Ted Cruz would be all for it.
Impeachment would put on display in a manner political campaigns cannot, the destructive and anti-American objectives of the Republican Party and the whacko theories on their plutocrats.
The results are predictable, ala 1998, the last time the Republicans began impeachment proceedings because the rightwing didn't like President Clinton getting so chummy with ethnic minorities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)