MADISON, Wis. – The 4-to-3 ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court to end the 2012 John Doe probe into Governor Scott Walker's recall election campaign financing will open the doors to secret outside money in Wisconsin elections, says Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause in Wisconsin.
Heck says the court's decision effectively renders contribution limits "meaningless" in the state, and will allow outside groups to influence elections.
"We have currently spending limits of $10,000 on the amount of contribution you can give to a gubernatorial campaign, and $1,000 to a state Senate campaign," he says. "Those are meaningless now if your campaign can coordinate with outside groups who have no limits on the amount of money they can spend."
Supporters of the decision say the John Doe probe was politically motivated, and note that in the three years the case has been active, no arrests have been made. The prosecutors who initiated the probe – from both political parties – alleged that Walker's recall election team broke state election laws by working in concert with outside dark money groups to coordinate campaign spending.
Heck says four of the seven justices of the court were beneficiaries of dark money spent on their behalf during their election campaigns by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, and the Wisconsin Club for Growth. Both of those organizations were sources of funds at the core of the John Doe probe. Heck calls the decision to end the probe into campaign money coordination "unprecedented."
"That hasn't been permitted by any federal court or state court in the country," he says. "This is the first time this has happened, and it's something that needs to be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Obviously we'll look into the possibilities of that happening."
Because the investigation has been halted, Heck says Wisconsinites and the rest of the nation will never know if Governor Walker and his campaign engaged in unlawful activity. He says the ruling means outside election money will flow into the Badger State.
"We probably are now going to see an even greater flood of secret outside money coming into Wisconsin," he says. "Undermining our elections, corrupting our public officials and seizing control of our state government."
get more stories like this via email
Campaign-finance watchdog groups are standing up in favor of Washington's disclosure law in court. Facebook parent company Meta has challenged the constitutionality of the state's disclosure law, which requires ad sellers to keep records of how much buyers paid and who the ad targeted. Meta has called the law burdensome on free speech and nearly impossible to comply with.
Tara Malloy, senior director for appellate litigation and strategy with Campaign Legal Center, said her organization and other election oversight groups have filed a brief weighing in favor of Washington's disclosure law.
"To discuss the huge public interest in electoral-disclosure laws like Washington and to outline the many challenges that the move to online political advertising has begun to pose for democratic discourse and voting in elections," she explained.
In 2022, Washington state filed a $25-million penalty against Meta for more than 800 violations of the campaign transparency law. The law has been on the state's books since 1972. Meta did not respond to a request for comment.
While Meta has argued the law is burdensome, there is evidence that may not be the case, Malloy said.
"The state trial court took a look at the record and said actually, you know, Meta collects all this information that it claims is so voluminous and burdensome anyway in the ordinary course of its business," she continued. "It just doesn't want to turn over the information."
Malloy added the campaign disclosure law shines a light on the basic information voters need to cast a meaningful ballot, and that it can be very hard to assess an ad when it's coming from an anonymous source.
"Time after time, we see that if voters know who is funding the ad - they know that the NRA is funding the ad as opposed to the Environmental Protection Fund - they are very, very able to better assess the credibility and biases of the speaker of the advertising," Malloy said.
Meta's challenge to the law is currently before a Washington state appeals court.
get more stories like this via email
Advocates for "clean" elections in Maine are gearing up for a November ballot referendum that would ban foreign government spending in state elections.
The Maine Legislature recently passed a bill to enact a ban with broad bipartisan support, but it was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Janet Mills, who said the bill's language raised First Amendment concerns.
Kaitlyn LaCasse, a campaigner for Protect Maine Elections, said the ban makes sense to voters.
"This campaign is really driven by the grit and determination and grassroots support of Maine voters," she said, "but our opponents will have tens of millions of dollars."
Companies from Canada and Spain are already spending some of that money on statewide television advertisements opposing a public takeover of two New England-based power companies.
LaCasse said more than 80,000 signatures have been collected to place the ban proposal on the November ballot.
Advocates for "clean" elections suffered another setback this session with the repeal of a recently enacted ban on corporate campaign contributions to legislators. Critics said the ban didn't go far enough, and that money could still flow to political action committees.
Anna Keller, executive director of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, called it "a step backwards."
"We had over 600 letters go to legislators from their constituents protesting the repeal of the corporate campaign contribution ban," she said, "and it made a big difference."
Keller said the bill repealing the ban does direct the Maine Ethics Commission to come back with a new bill that makes clearer the distinction where corporate contributions are allowed in Maine elections, while attempting to preserve the original aim of the ban.
Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.
get more stories like this via email
Lawmakers in Maine are considering legislation to allow candidates seeking county level offices to receive taxpayer funds under the Maine Clean Election Act.
The landmark 1996 law was the first in the nation to create a voluntary program of full public financing for gubernatorial, state senate and state representative campaigns.
Anna Keller, executive director of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, said the bill is needed as outside spending on county level candidates is increasing, especially for sheriff races.
"It's especially important that people can trust that those officials are not biased and are not going to be partial to donors," Keller asserted.
The bill has drawn both bipartisan support and criticism with some lawmakers saying the tax dollars would be unevenly distributed to counties. Keller argued while the bill is not a perfect solution it helps to better ensure elections are determined by voters and not donors.
While some lawmakers are hoping to expand Maine's Clean Election Act, others are working to amend it by repealing a ban on corporate contributions. Critics of the ban say it does not go far enough and money can still flow to political parties and their political action committees. Keller recommended rather than repeal the ban, lawmakers should work to strengthen it.
"It's really upsetting to see after years of Maine being a leader on campaign finance reform that we might actually move backwards this session," Keller stated.
Corporate donations were the largest source of spending in Maine's 2020 election cycle, including some from foreign-owned companies. Federal law and 22 other states prohibit corporate contributions to candidates.
Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.
get more stories like this via email