Hmmmn.
Seems that the law offices of Finerty, Friebert, and St. John (a corporation) were also the offices of Louis Butler's campaign. That's easy to understand; FFStJ is the Democrat Party in law practice and has been for years; they're well-organized, they have outstanding legal secretaries who are meticulous, they keep records well, etc., etc.
So if you're going to have someone maintain documents, track ins/outs of donations and payments, why not friendly professionals? Especially if they do all that stuff for free?
Bob Dohnal will tell you "why not": Wis. Stat. 11.38(1), which forbids, absolutely, and without reserve, ANY corporate contributions to ANY candidate for office in the State of Wisconsin.
To make matters more interesting, it seems that Louis Butler did not recuse himself when hearing cases brought to SCOWI by Finerty, Friebert & St.John--nor did he mention that they were maintaining his campaign HQ (and so forth) without recompense. Dohnal suggests that SCR 66.02 and 66.03 of the Wisconsin Judicial Code of Ethics address that. Negatively.
S'pose the local press will bother with this?
Like they did when Tom Reynolds split his electric bill with his campaign?
Or should Dohnal ask Gretchen Schuldt to write the story and send it to JS HQ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Apart from the firm's address on reports and getting mail, where do you get that it was the "offices" of the campaign? What exactly are you saying went on? What efforts? No really, what activities are you saying firm employees did for the campaign?
Dear Anonymous.
The complaint is linked.
But because you are obviously obtuse, I will help you out.
Opening mail. Depositing checks. Reconciling accounts. Maintaining campaign records. Sending letters.
You know. BILLABLE stuff.
You know. BILLABLE stuff.
Unless an attorney volunteers his time as treasurer, and the small stipend that Butler has paid to the firm covers the "cost" of someone to make sure that volunteer gets all the appropriate mail.
Yes, Jay, and that's what will be determined as the complaint is investigated, no?
Does $1,000.00 cover 8+ years' worth of reports, postage, clerical time (which IS billable), certified mailings, etc.??
Or was a "contribution" made?
Remember, Jay, the Reynolds complaint was over penny-ante silly shit, too.
How's this complaint coming along, Dad29?
Oooohhh, Foustie, you're SO smart!
Irrelevant and immaterial, Foustie.
FF&StJ is composed of a number of attorneys who have pled cases before SCOWI. And Jr/Sr notwithstanding, FFStJ was on record as Louie's campaign mail-drop, too.
You think Loophole Louie is really stupid, no?
Actually, I don't care about disclosure/recuse where an attorney has made minimal contributions (say, $5K or less in a cycle.)
But that's not the issue which was raised in the complaint, as you well know.
I went further into the cases. At best--at best!--three of the original list of 35 cases could show a conflict, and Butler was not the deciding vote in any of those cases.
OK, Dad29, how's the CFG/"D'oh!nal" complaint coming along now?
Jay, your opinion of the cases is irrelevant.
So is Butler's "decision" status on them.
The question is: did Butler violate the Judicial Code canons or not? And that will be settled by the process initiated by the complaint.
But keep digging around. I'm sure that you can find lots of OTHER information which is irrelevant.
John, wasting bandwidth is ecologically insensitive. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Post a Comment