ZAC SCHULTZ:

THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT HAS STOPPED THE JOHN DOE INVESTIGATION INTO COORDINATION BETWEEN GOVERNOR WALKER’S CAMPAIGN AND THIRD-PARTY INTEREST GROUPS. IN THE WORDS OF JUSTICE MICHAEL GABLEMAN, THIS CONCLUSION ENDS THE JOHN DOE INVESTIGATION BECAUSE THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR’S LEGAL THEORY IS UNSUPPORTED IN EITHER REASON OR LAW. THE PROBE, WHICH MILWAUKEE DISTRICT ATTORNEY JOHN CHISHOLM STARTED IN 2012, EXPLORED POSSIBLE FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL COORDINATION BETWEEN CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL GROUPS AND THE SCOTT WALKER RECALL CAMPAIGN. THE 4-2 DECISION INCLUDED ORDERS TO CEASE ALL ACTIVITIES, RETURN SEIZED PROPERTY AND DESTROY COPIES OF MATERIALS GATHERED IN THE INVESTIGATION. WE GO OVER THE RULING NOW WITH FORMER STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JANINE GESKE, WHO JOINS US FROM SUPERIOR. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.

JANINE GESKE:

YOU’RE WELCOME ZAC.

ZAC SCHULTZ:

NOW, WERE YOU SURPRISED BY ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR IN THIS RULING?

JANINE GESKE:

WELL, I WAS NOT SURPRISED BY THE RESULT. I WAS SURPRISED BY THE HARSH LANGUAGE, THE LANGUAGE ATTACKING BOTH THE PROSECUTOR, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS. THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION AND REALLY SORT OF THE TONE OF THE WHOLE OPINION. I WAS ALSO SURPRISED THAT PARTS OF THE OPINION ACTUALLY TALKED ABOUT THINGS THAT WERE NOT IN THE ACTUAL RECORD. AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS DID SURPRISE ME.

ZAC SCHULTZ:

OVERALL, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR WISCONSIN’S CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS GOING FORWARD?

JANINE GESKE:

WELL, I THINK THE IMPORT OF THE DECISION ITSELF IS THAT OBVIOUSLY CAMPAIGN — THE CAMPAIGNS OF CANDIDATES CAN TALK TO AND COORDINATE WITH THESE OTHER ADVOCACY GROUPS AND THE ADVOCACY GROUPS, THE ISSUES GROUPS AS THEY CALL THEMSELVES, DON’T HAVE TO REPORT ANY OF THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, WHO’S GIVEN THEM MONEY AND HOW MUCH. AND THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT’S ALL PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THEREFORE IT’S NOT ILLEGAL TO HAVE THAT COORDINATION, AS LONG AS THAT INDEPENDENT GROUP IS NOT DOING EXPRESS ADVOCACY OR CAMPAIGNING FOR A PARTICULAR CANDIDATE IN THEIR ADS.

ZAC SCHULTZ:

NOW, THE THIRD-PARTY INTEREST GROUPS THAT WERE AT THE HEART OF THIS CASE, WISCONSIN MANUFACTURERS AND COMMERCE, THE CLUB FOR GROWTH, CITIZENS FOR A STRONG AMERICA SPENT A COMBINED $8 MILLION TO HELP ELECT THE FOUR JUSTICES THAT WROTE THE MAJORITY DECISION. THOSE JUSTICES WERE ASKED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM THIS CASE AND YET NONE DID. SHOULD THEY HAVE AND WHAT DOES THAT DO TO PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF THE COURT?

JANINE GESKE:

WELL, I THINK THAT IT HAS CAUSED A GREAT PROBLEM WITH THE COURT, AND I DON’T KNOW WHETHER ALL THE JUSTICES WERE ASKED TO BE RECUSED BY THE PROSECUTOR, BUT I KNOW AT LEAST SOME OF THEM WERE. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK WHAT WAS TELLING WAS I THINK EVERYBODY IN THE STATE EXPECTED THIS DECISION BECAUSE THEY HAD THIS FEELING THAT THOSE JUSTICES WERE GOING TO FIND FOR THOSE GROUPS. IT ALSO GIVES THE POSSIBILITY OF AN APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ON WHETHER THOSE JUSTICES THAT WERE ASKED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES SHOULD HAVE BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THERE IS AN UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASE THAT TALKS ABOUT THAT ISSUE, AND I THINK THAT THAT MAY BE AN ONGOING ISSUE FOR MORE LITIGATION ON THE JOHN DOE PROCEEDINGS.

ZAC SCHULTZ:

SO DESPITE THE FACT THAT JUSTICE GABLEMAN SAYS THIS CASE IS CLOSED, THIS IS OVER, IT MAY NOT BE OVER?

JANINE GESKE:

I WOULD NOT BET ON IT BEING OVER. I THINK THERE WILL BE SOME MORE ATTEMPTS TO KEEP IT ALIVE BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS SO IMPORTANT, ON HOW THE STATE INTERPRETS, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE ISSUE OF THESE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO KNOW WHOSE MONEY IS BEING USED AND HOW IT’S BEING USED WHEN IT’S SUPPORTING A PARTICULAR CANDIDATE AND HIS OR HER ISSUES.

ZAC SCHULTZ:

NOW, THE ONE JUSTICE WHO DID RECUSE HERSELF WAS ANN WALSH BRADLEY. SHE SAID HER SON IS A LAWYER AT ONE OF THE FIRMS WORKING ON THIS CASE. HOW IS THAT ENOUGH FOR RECUSAL, BUT SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON A CAMPAIGN IS NOT?

JANINE GESKE:

EACH JUSTICE HAS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE OR SHE BELIEVES THAT IT EITHER GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY OR IS IMPROPER. BUT THERE IS AN UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASE, IT’S CALLED CAPERTON, IN WHICH A PARTICULAR JUSTICE RECEIVED $3 MILLION IN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HELD THAT HE SHOULD NOT HAVE SAT ON THE CASE AND IT WAS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS TO THE PARTIES INVOLVED. AND SO THAT CLEARLY COULD BE AT ISSUE HERE BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE INFLUENCE OF A PARTICULAR OBJECTS OF THE JOHN DOE. I THINK WE’RE GOING TO SEE MORE OF THAT, MORE ISSUES — MORE LITIGATION ON THAT RELATIVE ISSUE. YOU KNOW, THE COUNTERARGUMENT IS THAT IF WE HAVE ELECTIONS IN OUR STATE, THE JUSTICES WILL BE RECUSING THEMSELVES ALL THE TIME. BUT THERE IS A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY INVOLVED IN THIS, AND I THINK IT GIVES RISE TO SOME SERIOUS QUESTIONS.

ZAC SCHULTZ:

WE ONLY HAVE A FEW SECONDS LEFT, BUT WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE FUTURE OF JUDICIAL ELECTIONS? CAN YOU SEE COORDINATION BETWEEN A SITTING SUPREME COURT JUSTICE AND ANOTHER GROUP IN THE FUTURE?

JANINE GESKE:

WELL ABSOLUTELY. I THINK IT OPENS THE DOOR TO THAT. I THINK THAT CLEARLY A NUMBER OF THESES GROUPS HAVE PUT IN A LOT OF MONEY ALREADY INTO THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT ELECTIONS AND THIS WILL SIMPLY OPEN THE DOOR THAT THOSE DONORS, WHO DON’T WANT TO BE KNOWN, WHO DON’T WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THEY’RE INVESTING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OR EVEN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN A CAMPAIGN, CAN DO IT THROUGH THAT MECHANISM AND THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE NO RIGHT TO KNOW THAT.

ZAC SCHULTZ:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. WE APPRECIATE IT.

JANINE GESKE:

THANK YOU.