Grant Uses Caucus for Personal Gain

Today's Wisconsin State Journal article reinforces the fact that prosecution witness, Eric Grant is the only caucus staffer to personally profit from political work done on state time using state resources.Grant told the State Journal that he received money from a variety of political campaigns dating back to 1996 that were not related to the Assembly Caucus or its campaign committee RACC.

In other words, Grant who only worked from 9-5 and never took vacation or leave time to do political work for State Legislative candidates padded his wallet with extra cash. At the same time other legislative staffers used their vacation time and paid additional taxes as independent consultants while working overtime to get the job done.

Grant entered the scene as a failed Republican candidate for Assembly, and left as the guy who complained about his work load while he was raking in extra money doing work non-partisan candidates and members of both political parties.

Perhaps Grant stole all those files from the ARC on his way out the door because he was afraid someone might discover his for profit scheme. I'd be scared too if I were double dipping while working for both parties.

Political Activity Was Paid for With Campaign Dollars

In their quest to prove that all politics is political, prosecutors in the State v. Jensen introduced a number of documents illustrating how the Assembly Republican Caucus went to great lengths to make sure state taxpayers did not end up paying the tab for nearly $200,000 worth of polling and the salaries of 24 campaign staffers in the year 2000.

Documents admitted into evidence by the prosecution today show that the Republican Assembly Campaign Committee (RACC), and not the state of Wisconsin taxpayers, spent nearly a half million dollars in 2000 on campaigns related expenses. The state offered the documents as proof that political paperwork was created and maintained at the Caucus.

Hmm……

Don’t Get Burned by St. Lyndee’s Fire

On Friday Lyndee Wall Woodliff, told the jury tales of bonfires, shredders, and countless other ways in which ARC staffers worked furiously to hide or destroy evidence after reporter Dee Hall visited the ARC offices, but today on cross examination, Woodliff’s former boss Jason Kratochwill gave a very different version of events.

Kratochwill told Attorney Steve Meyer that he informed Scott Jensen of Dee Hall’s request to visit the ARC office and that Jensen had no problem with the reporter coming to the ARC for an interview. Kratochwill also said that contrary to Woodliff’s testimony, there were no bonfires, no destruction of records and no efforts to hide documents after the newspaper articles were published. Kratochwill said they complied with open records requests and that when Jensen learned of Woodliff’s allegations, he hired a private investigator to look into the matter. The investigator found no evidence or witnesses to corroborate Woodliff’s story.

The bonfire story sounds good doesn’t it? In our heroine’s imagination, she can picture the whole gang there getting drunk and reading excerpts from various memos before tossing them into the flames. She wonders what actress will be chosen to play her in the movie.

And Dee Hall of the Wisconsin State Journal reported it all, without documentation or corroboration. That puts her closer to Jayson Blair than Bob Woodward.

Brian Blanchard: the Prosecutor without a Conscience

Last week Scott Jensen and Sherry Schultz went on trial for using state resources for political purposes. Their attorneys argue that the laws regarding political activity are unclear and often contradictory.

Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard says that argument is ridiculous, pointing to a few vaguely worded statues that reference the term “political” but fail to define it. After all, Blanchard’s star witness, Lyndee Wall Woodliff says she knew almost immediately that her work at the Republican Assembly Caucus violated the law, even though she's not a lawyer and she’d never read the statutes.

That’s why I almost choked when I read this motion that was filed by attorneys for former State Senator Brian Burke. The filing discusses how Blanchard admitted that he, his wife Mary, and other members of his campaign violated 11.36 (1) of the Wisconsin Statutes when they sought and received political services for his campaign from the Wisconsin Democratic Caucus.

So what explanation did Blanchard offer for this illegal behavior?

In both public statements and courtroom testimony during a September 17, 2002 John Doe hearing, the Blanchards claim to have been unaware that the SDC was a public organization and that its staff members were public employees.

Imagine that. An attorney from the state’s second largest county didn’t know that the Senate Democrat Caucus was a public organization, and that therefore soliciting and accepting political services from ADC was, apparently, against the law.

Well, Lyndee knew. She knew right away. And she was just a high school graduate who grew up on a farm in Lancaster, not a highly educated attorney from Quarles and Brady whose offices were located one floor below the SDC for the three years prior to his campaign for District Attorney.

Oh yeah, and Scott McCormick who served as Blanchard’s campaign manager in 2000 also served as treasurer of Independent Citizens for Democracy, the independent expenditure group that helped send Chuck Chvala to jail.

Of course Blanchard got cozy with Chuck when he wanted his help:

Two days after the Chvala event, Gussert wrote the memo to Chvala and Weix, reciting Mary Blanchard’s laundry list of requests. One week after that, Mr. Blanchard made a contribution to Senator Chvala’s campaign. According to the Wisconsin Cooperative Campaign Finance Database, this is the only political contribution Mr. Blanchard has made.

Andy Gussert was the former SDC Director who also managed Jim Doyle’s 1998 campaign for Attorney General. Remember the 9 1/2 page Gap? Well here’s another section of Gussert testimony we missed:

Gussert testified that Mr. Blanchard would call him on his state telephone line during work hours. Gussert testified he told Mr. Blanchard that “this is my government number or this is my office number, we should talk on my cell phone.”

Pages 13 and 14 of the motion offer additional evidence that Blanchard knew the SDC was in fact a public organization. So either Blanchard knew what he was doing was illegal and didn’t care, or he knew the SDC was a public organization, but didn’t believe it was illegal for SDC to provide political services to him upon request.

Either way, he’s both a coward and hypocrite for prosecuting Scott Jensen and Sherry Schultz.

Dee and Lyndee's Finest Hour

The benefit of being present in the courtroom is that I’ve had the opportunity to observe the media covering the trial as well as the witnesses, attorneys, jury members and defendants. Make no mistake about it; Dee Hall was all puffed Friday when her star informant Lyndee Wall Woodliff took the stand.

Hall even dressed up for the main event, trading in her oversized parka and comfortable shoes for a pair of cropped black pants, nylons and heels. Was she anticipating being rushed by the cameras? I guess we’ll never know, since the Judge Ebert asked Hall to leave the courtroom during Steve Morgan’s cross examination of Woodliff.

On the other hand witness Woodliff appeared in jeans and a sweater. She wore her hair straight, though much darker than it appeared in previous newspapers photographs, and she had on little if any makeup.

While Woodliff’s look was understated, her testimony was quite animated as she frequently talked with her hands and turned to look around the room. At one point she put her index finger to her mouth while looking upward as she considered the question put before her.

She started out like most witnesses, simply answering the questions asked but not offering additional detail or injecting her opinion. From time to time she glanced over at the defendants and appeared to be somewhat remorseful.

As time went on, Woodliff came alive with detailed commentary, though her memory of events was somewhat selective, an irony that made her giggle at times. For example, she had difficulty remembering how many times she met with investigators or exactly when and how often Dee Hall visited the Assembly Republican Caucus, an event that she said sparked a major directive from her boss to keep campaigning under wraps.

Most notably Woodliff could not remember when her most recent meeting with prosecutors took place, though she believed it was within the last week and a half. (Now I have short term memory issues --- Did I just take that vitamin? Why did I run all the way upstairs?) ---but I think I’d remember the exact date I made arrangements to travel from Janesville to Madison, especially if I had a job and a small child.

It must have made prosecutors nervous when Morgan requested Woodliff’s copy of prosecutors notes of her interviews, complete with the handwritten notes and highlights she made in order to “refresh” her memory prior to testifying.

Morgan confirmed that the written interviews represented the prosecutor’s interpretation of the interviews, rather than a written transcript of a tape recording. Woodliff said she was asked to review the interviews and to notify prosecutors of any inconsistencies. She said she found no “glaring mischaracterizations.”

But Morgan found at least one. Investigators wrote that Woodliff said ARC Director, Jason Kratochwill had locks installed on two inner offices after Dee Hall’s first visit to ARC offices. Wall told Morgan she did not think she said the locks were installed but rather that Jason told staff to start keeping those doors locked. Kratochwill had also told Woodliff that Dee Hall tried to steal documents from his desk during that meeting. Could that be why he wanted the doors locked?

Morgan also wanted to know what Woodliff had studied to allow her to know within one week at the ARC that the law was being broken. She said had no prior legal training and that she was not aware that all four partisan campaign committees are constituted in the statutes.

Woodliff, who remained in the job for nine months despite her “immediate” knowledge that she was breaking the law, could not say why she kept a copy of a fax that Sherry Schultz had sent during the evening of October 8, 2000. Maybe she was just being helpful, the same way Eric Grant was being helpful by stealing all those documents that had nothing to do with his tenure at the Caucus.

Though the jury will never hear the possible motives Woodliff and Grant might have had for stock piling documents and testifying with enthusiasm, I doubt either one was validated by their day in court.

Grant was forced to admit that he not only did campaign work on state time for his state salary, but he also used his state position to do free lance campaign work for several other candidates. A fact he apparently concealed from investigators.

As for Lyndee Wall Woodliff, she was still hanging around the 8th floor corridor at least a half hour after she was excused from the witness stand. I wonder what she was waiting for?

Slow and Clumsy Prosecutors are Wearing Thin

I can't say I'm impressed with the state's presentation so far, and while Judge Ebert has been enormously accommodating, I think their slow and clumsy examination of witnesses and introduction of evidence is starting to wear thin.

After three full days of trial, the state has called a total of six witnesses and offered approximately 45 exhibits into evidence. The state's witness list includes over 40 potential witnesses, and I'm not sure they know who they’re going to call. And prosecutors have been surprised by some of the answers witness have given on direct, both yesterday and today.

I thought that lawyers weren't supposed to ask a question if they didn't already know the answer.

As concerned as this Judge is about wrapping the trial up in the estimated three week period, I don't understand why he continues to allow the prosecution to obtain testimony not directly related to the charges, and to introduce evidence that can not be properly identified.

Today's testimony of graphic artist Gina Ward, who worked for Jensen for two years in 1987 and has never met Sherry Schultz, was not relevant to the charges against Jensen and may have even helped his case by showing how campaign materials were produced by the caucuses twenty years ago.

And why on earth was it necessary to keep Eric Grant on the witness stand for four hours today when prosecutors planned to call three more graphic designers after him?It'll be interesting to see if the Judge starts to run a tighter ship when Lyndee Wall takes the stand Friday for her fifteen (hours) of fame.

It’s the Football Schedules, Stupid!

Today the state’s star witness, Eric Grant was forced to admit that he personally benefited by taking money for work he did for several Dane county board candidates and at least one legislative candidate, while on state time and using his state computer. But Grant insists the freelance work he did for former Governor Tommy Thompson and U.S. Representative Tammy Baldwin in 1998 was done at night on his home computer. He worked for both Tommy and Tammy in the same year and we're supposed to believe what he says?

Grant, who was a graphic designer for the Assembly Republican Caucus from August of 1995 until April of 2000, began direct testimony late Wednesday and appeared very eager to help the prosecution by providing extraneous details and commentary throughout his testimony. Roy Korte was like a kid in a candy store, running Grant through list after list of Packer/Badger football schedules and invitations he’d designed for hundreds of individuals, under the direction of two different caucus directors who served at the will of three separate Assembly Speakers over a five year period.

Grant provided prosecutors with a folder he took from his state office which was full of football schedules dating back to Jeff Wagner’s campaign for Attorney General in 1994. Grant was only able to identify three of the schedules as his own work, and those were designed in the summer of 1997, before Scott Jensen was elected Speaker. The rest were created by former caucus artists or provided to him as samples.

If the schedule doesn’t fit, you must acquit……

Actually I’m surprise Jensen was ever released on bail. How can we be sure he’s not printing more schedules right now?

The fact is the four Assembly Caucus designers whose testimony today covered a span of time from 1987 – 2001 said hundreds of people requested their help with campaign materials over time, but Scott Jensen was not one of them.

The two designers, who were employed at the Caucus when the investigation started, said Jensen never asked them to destroy evidence, lie or hinder the state’s investigation in any way, and both recalled Jensen telling them not to worry, if the four partisan caucuses were eliminated, Jensen would help them all find new jobs.

Every now and then during the trial I have to pinch myself. Two people are facing the possibility of jail over Packer football schedules. Vince Lombardi must be rolling over in his grave.

Email is working........

I apologize for not responding to emails at Above the Belt, but I couldn't figure out how to retrieve it. I can do that now.

Please also note that the link to Loftus fundraising documents is fixed on the word dome.

Clear as Mud

State Elections Board Director (SEB) Kevin Kennedy gave the impression he would rather be having a root canal than testify for the state in the case against Scott Jensen and Sherry Schultz, and really who could blame him? He went to all that trouble to negotiate a settlement with the legislature that included clarification of the legislative rules and elimination of the partisan caucuses, and now he had to admit under oath that his agency aided and abetted “political activity” on state time. Then again, Kennedy’s agency is the controlling legal authority for campaign registration and financial reporting, and its hours of operation are 7:45 am -4:30 pm Monday – Friday.

There was some early discussion about the broad definition of contributions and whether using the Capitol to announce a state campaign is an in-kind contribution. Kennedy at one point said he believed that discussing finances or making decisions about campaigns in the Capitol was a violation of state law, but no one ever asked him about that. Then Kennedy went on to say that Elections Board staff often contacted Sherry Schultz to help correct errors that were made by Assembly Republicans filing campaign finance reports. Good thing they knew where to find her to discuss these financing issues.

It was good too that Schultz and Assembly GOP staffer, Paul Tessmer were so accommodating when it came to developing the electronic reporting system for campaign finance reports that the SEB uses today. Otherwise the SEB would not have been able to meet their statutory requirement for electronic filing. Kennedy complained that the legislature had directed the SEB to create the new reporting system, but did not provide the financial resources needed for its development.

So did Tessmer and Schultz’s system constitute an in-kind contribution to the State Elections Board?

Kennedy said while he didn’t think campaign finance reports were quite as complicated as tax returns, he said all campaign finance reports filed with the SEB have errors of some kind, and that SEB staff often referred Sherry Schultz’s questions regarding campaign finance reports to Kennedy or SEB legal counsel. So it’s not too complicated if you’re an elections attorney?

After all was said and done, Kevin Kennedy helped Schultz’s attorney Steve Morgan show that Schultz was not a political fundraiser, but an administrative assistance who was helping members to understand and comply with campaign finance laws and reporting requirements, and the State Elections Board was grateful to her for it.

Blanchard Passes the Buck

After getting off to a rocky start with its first two witnesses, the state began direct examination of former Assembly Republican Graphic Artist, Eric Grant. Grant who is currently employed as an art director at a Chicago advertising agency, worked at the Republican Assembly Caucus from August of 1995 until April of 2000. Scott Jensen was not elected Speaker of the Assembly until 1997, the same year Sherry Schultz was hired by Assembly Leader Steve Foti.

Despite the defense’s objections, Judge Ebert allowed the state to introduce testimony and evidence about Grant’s employment activities that predate the charges against both defendants. Grant spent the better part of the afternoon discussing various political projects he worked on beginning in the fall of 1995.

District Attorney Brian Blanchard who seems quite willing to put people in jail for using state paid graphic artists to create campaign literature, decided to let Assistant AG Roy Korte examine Grant. Was that because Blanchard himself received graphic design services from the Senate Democratic Caucus staff? Was Blanchard feeling even the slightest twinge of guilt when Korte showed Grant a nomination paper he had designed for an Assembly candidate?

Eric Grant testified that he created over a hundred documents over a four and a half year period for dozens of different people. So how is that the state’s presentation was so selectively focused that Grant ended up mentioning the names of a former media director who now serves as Congressman Mark Green’s Chief of Staff, and a former legislative aid who is now Scott Walker’s Campaign Manager?

And the state’s exhibit just happened to include a work order for Mark Green’s 1998 congressional campaign --- the media was foaming at the mouth over this revelation. The only problem is that Mark Green’s campaign paid Grant personally for that work, so if Grant used state time and resources to complete that project, he has just been identified as the only Republican to use his state position and resources for personal gain. That might make this overly eager witness a little less credible.

Tomorrow the state will call Gina Ward to testify. Ward worked as an Assembly Republican Caucus Artist in 1989, when Scott Jensen served as Caucus Director. Funny how the state gets to call witnesses to testify about what was done in the past but the defense team can’t bring up the past “uncharged activities" of others to make their case that the rules were unclear.

If the defense could raise these kinds of issues, they might talk about how former Doyle Campaign Manager Andy Gussert directed Senate Democratic Caucus staff to provide voter lists and nomination paper design work for Brian Blanchard’s campaign for Dane County District Attorney, or how current Doyle Campaign Manager Rich Judge directed graphic artists to create campaign literature for Democratic Assembly candidates every day when he was a caucus director, a decade after Scott Jensen served in that capacity.

And that pesky defense might want to know why Blanchard redacted most of the testimony of Assembly Democratic Caucus artist Lisa Lindner along with the entire report of selected copies of political materials she created at the ADC. And why did Blanchard steer Lindner's boyfriend and co-worker, Mike White away from testimony about Lindner's work? Did that work include graphic design for Jim Doyle, Peg Laugtenslager or Brian Burke's campaigns?

Brian Blanchard will call a total of four former Graphic Artists to testify that they designed campaign literature on state time. Unless they decide to lie under oath, not one of them will say Scott Jensen directed them to do so.

Opening Statements ---- State v. Jensen

(Today I observed jury selection and opening statements in the State v. Jensen. I will be observing as much of othe trial as possible during the next few weeks.)


Assistant Attorney General Roy Korte delivered the prosecution’s opening statement which, like the case itself, made little sense and went on way too long.

Korte said the case was about duty, deception and benefit, but he did not elaborate on those points. Rather he tried to explain terms like public financing, political action committees and conduit contributions, and he threw acronym after acronym at a beleaguered jury who had already endured hours of voir dire testimony and jury instructions interrupted by a fire alarm.

It was apparent that Mr. Korte knows what all the terms mean, but doesn’t have a clue how things work in the Capital. Nor does he understand the capacity of the average person to absorb this kind of information. If he did, he never would have tried to explain it to a jury.

The state has argued that the issues in this case are clear and simple, yet their opening remarks illustrate what the defense has said all along: the issues are very unclear and quite confusing.

Defense Attorney Stephen Meyer did a good job highlighting how confusing and complicated the rules or lack of rules were that governed the behavior of state legislators and capital staff, and he said it was Scott Jensen who took the lead in reforming the system after the 2000 election cycle.

He talked about how Jensen met with Assembly Chief Clerk John Scocos in January of 2001 and asked him to do a top-down review of the entire legislative staff. He specifically wanted to upgrade and professionalize the staff, to implement a timesheet system and to rewrite the employee handbook that had not been updated in 28 years.

Meyer said the handbook “was replete with contradictions.” For example on page 3 it said that political activity was not permitted, yet the job description of Caucus Director and staff was “to meet with legislative leaders and state party officials to plan statewide political strategy.”

Meyer began his opening statement by admitting that when he began working on this case, he had no idea how things really worked in the legislature. He talked about how hard Scott Jensen and other legislators work not only to get elected but to serve their constituents and he said that campaigns and constituent service are inextricably linked.

Meyer told the jury that Scott Jensen and his colleagues often work very long hours and are not highly compensated for their work. Finally, Meyer said: Scott Jensen has never received anything of benefit for himself or his family; he did not delay or promote legislation for money; he did not alter documents or direct people to lie or hinder the state, and he has not taken anything of value from lobbyists.

So why are we here?

The Loftus Files

The media has paid little attention to the fact Scott Jensen's attorney Stephen Morgan says he still plans to call Former Assembly Speaker Tom Loftus to testify.

Supreme Court Justice David Prosser and former State Senate Majority Leader Joel Strohl have provided very candidate statements about their own activities as legislative leaders and the role of the partisan caucuses during their tenure.

Tom Loftus has been silent, so I started looking for comments he might have made since the Caucus investigation began in 2001. What I found was a remarkable disparity between the Tom Loftus of 80’s and 90’s and the new millennium version.

Now, I have no doubt that Tom Loftus is a decent man.

I met him once in 1990, he was running for Governor and I was working on Governor Thompson’s campaign. He spotted a co-worker and me wearing campaign t-shirts and he crossed the street to introduce himself. I doubt either of Tommy Thompson’s subsequent opponents would have done that.

I remember thinking that Loftus’ heart wasn’t really in the race which was easy to understand. There was no taking on the indefatigable Tommy, especially in his first re-election campaign.

Recently I looked through Loftus’ state office file from the State Historical Society, and it occurred to me that most people have either forgotten or never realized that this ineffective gubernatorial candidate and mild- mannered statesman was once one of Wisconsin’s most formidable political leaders. A leader who used the full power of his position, his state office and the Assembly Democratic Caucus to maintain the Democratic Majority in the Assembly during his reign as Speaker, and to support his gubernatorial race in 1990.

Consultant Bill Christofferson would have us believe that Loftus’ political operation was minor compared to the Assembly Republican Caucus under Scott Jensen, yet in his own words, Loftus admits that he raised the bar for the partisan caucuses and the political role of the Speaker.

In a 1986 State Legislatures article titled, “The New Age Legislature Flexes its Muscle,” Loftus said it was necessary to for him to become a fund raiser because political parties had left legislative candidates to fend for themselves. Loftus reported that the Assembly Democratic Campaign Committee raised around $150,000 in 1984 to retain the Democratic majority in the State Assembly. That wasn’t exactly chump change then--- and much of it was raised right under the Dome.

Loftus also described the myriad of campaign services the Assembly Democratic Caucus provided to vulnerable Democratic incumbents and challengers in marginal seats.

“In most cases committee members recruited the candidate and provided training through campaign schools. The also provide personnel and logistical support, issue papers, press releases, speakers for fund raisers, fundraisers themselves and phone banks.”

“We pay for the recount if it’s a close race; we pay for the lawyer if it goes to court. If they have kids, we pay for the babysitter,” he said.

Loftus elaborated further in a partisan political speech in 1984. He told the crowd that the purpose of both the partisan caucuses and the caucus committees were “to fight for the rather abstract goal of partisan control.”

“It works because people want access, influence, or insurance. It changes a lot a little. Political action committees have money. If, as previously, they give it all to incumbents of whatever party, nothing changes. If they have to give some of it to a campaign committee headed by the Speaker or the minority leader, some things change.”

And Loftus was a crass political fundraiser who quipped:

“The Wisconsin Manufacturers Association recently complained that business related groups were contributing to Democrats by a margin of 4 to 1 over Republicans—that they weren’t putting their money where their ideology was. I told them not to worry—we didn’t want their ideology.”

Yet Loftus, who recently agreed to serve as Chairman of the Wisconsin Eye Board, sounded somewhat surprised and rather disgusted by "revelations" that campaigning and fundraising was taking place in the Capitol after his departure.

“I think the two of us agreed to be shills for WisconsinEye because we believe that this state's politics is in dire need of a swift kick in the pants," Loftus said.

"Things are bad here. Now in Washington when people ask me where I am from, I say Chicagago" Loftus said.

Now the kinds of things Loftus talked about in speeches and interviews were no different than the activities described in the felony charges against Scott Jensen.

I wonder what Tom Loftus would say if he were asked about these documents which clearly illustrate a history of systematic political activity in our state Capitol. A system he helped to nurture and grow.

Ticketgate is Bipartisan Scandal

The Madison media is so over-whelmed by the shear volume of real news stories, that two media outlets gave prominence to a story about Scott's Walker’s seven seat fundraiser at the Kohl Center tonight.

The Capitol Times dedicated 638 words to the fact Walker's campaign for Governor was offering up to seven seats to a basketball game for $1,000 each. The invitation also included a half-time reception in a leased skybox.

WKOW TV 27 led with the story concerned that the skybox might be leased by a corporation and therefore not legal for Walker to use for political purposes --- unless of course an individual reimburses the corporation for the use of the skybox and then reports it as in-kind contribution to the Walker campaign.

What's the point? Are we just to assume that Walker intended to pull a fast one and not report the use of the box? Why not wait until the next finance report is due and pounce on him? Perhaps they didn’t want to take the chance that Walker would do the right thing so they made an issue out of it ahead of time. Now they claim he was just covering his tracks when the report is made public in six months.

And then of course there’s that skybox ticket Mark Green’s campaign manager accepted that one time. You better hang onto tight to those basketball tickets when you see these Republicans coming.

Did anyone in the media ever consider whether it’s appropriate for Jim Doyle’s campaign to spend thousands of dollars on season tickets to Badger and Packer games? If I were a Doyle donor, I’d be pissed.

And don’t tell me Tommy did it too. If he did, he shouldn’t have.

Not Sure about Donations? Request Phone and Email Records

This article by AP Reporter RJ Ross describes several more "coincidences" between lucrative state contracts and donations to Jim Doyle's re-election campaign.

We know that Jim Doyle is a man of utmost integrity who does not tolerate ethical lapses in his administration, because Joe Wineke says so, but just to be on the safe side, some enterprising journalist might want to do an open records request on all emails, phone records, and other correspondences between representatives of companies who were awarded no bid contracts and key DOA officials. That way we can all be sure that Doyle's top appointees are as intolerant of ethical lapses as the Governor himself.

Start with Patrick Farley, Matt Miszewski, Helen McCain, Jim Langdon, Gina Frank Reece and Marc Marotta.

Bless Me Father for I Threw the Archbishop Under the Bus

The Governor’s spin machine was clearly running on empty last week. Friday, Doyle spokesman Dan Leistekow suggested that Archbishop Timothy Dolan “misheard” the Governor during their recent discussion about the enrollment cap on Milwaukee’s Parental School Choice Program.

Brother Bob Smith, who oversees education programs for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, said the Governor told the Archbishop he might consider raising the enrollment cap by 10,000, an idea that excited school choice supporters who have advocated eliminating the cap entirely.

Yet, rather than admit that he might negotiate his way out of this political quagmire, Doyle sent his spokesperson to front line to deny that he’s ever considered raising the cap by more than 5,000 students.

Is there a schism between the Department of Administration and Heir Goodwin?

Does Archbishop Dolan suffer from hearing loss? If memory serves, hearing confession requires rather keen auditory skills.

And how many Our Fathers and Hail Mary’s do you get for calling the Archbishop a liar?

From the Mixed-up Files of Brian W. Blanchard

As promised, here are more documents from the mixed-up files of Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard.

The documents include: Blanchard's notes from several meetings with former Assembly Democratic Caucus Director, Tanya Bjork; a series of emails between Bjork and Wisconsin Voter Education Fund Treasurer, Ron Legro; an email between Rich Judge and Ron Legro; bank statements; wire transfers and other correspondences. Legro who is currently employed as a Community Relations Officer for Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority (WHEDA) received immunity from prosecution for his cooperation. The funny thing is that Legro's testimony did not lead to the prosecution of other people involved. People like former State Representative Shirley Krug, Tanya Bjork or her successor Rich Judge. Judge is currently working as the Campaign Manager for Governor Doyle’s re-election.

During an interview with Bjrok on 02/20/2002 (pages 1-7) Blanchard discusses Bjork's "handoff" of WVEF to Rich Judge when she left the Caucus. Bjork said the transition of duties would have been no big deal since Judge knew about everything going on anyway. Blanchard showed Bjrok a document marked Exhibit 43, an email between Rich Judge and Ron Legro dated May 30, 2002. Only one page of the email is included here (page 72). I can’t help but wonder what was on the other page.

In another email between Bjrok and Legro on February 23, 2001 (page 63), Bjork assures Legro that she will forward IRS paperwork for WVEF to Rich Judge to take care of. Pages 50 and 51 include an email regarding the wire transfer of $312,000 from the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) to WVEF and bank documentation of the transaction.

Now we know exactly what Rich Judge was doing from the Fall of 2000 until the Spring of 2002 ----helping to operate an illegal independent expenditure organization that laundered over $300,000 from the DLCC to the WVEF ---- all from his state capitol office.

Given the time and expense Blanchard invested in collecting testimony and supporting documentation, why wasn’t anyone charged in connection with the blatantly illegal activities of WVEF the same way Chuck Chvala and Doug Burnette were charged for their involvement with Independent Citizens for Democracy? Is too late for justice?

Why was Ron Legro given immunity when his cooperation did not lead the prosecution of other people? Was Legro given immunity in exchange for his silence?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Rich Judge, The Other Apprentice

Leave it to the Doyle spin machine to try and use evidence about illegal activities in the Assembly Democratic Caucus to the Governor’s political advantage.

During his recent hiatus, one of X-Off’s squatters posted an item titled, “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.” The title refers to testimony that Madison’s Sultan of Sanctimony, Spencer Black went to Washington D.C .with Chuck Chvala to learn how to launder money from the DLCC to the Wisconsin Voter Education Fund (WVEF).

Forget for now that Chuck could have shown Spencer how it worked on a bar napkin at the Argus --- there’s another interesting angle to this story.

The testimony regarding what was known as the “Sorcerer’s Apprentice Trip” was proffered by Jim Doyle’s Campaign Manager, Rich Judge who had intimate knowledge of the illegal money laundering scheme, but there’s more……

Additional evidence is about to surface which proves that Judge was not only aware of the scheme, he was in charge of the operation. And Brian Blanchard went out of his way to keep it hidden.

The evidence will include new interview notes along with emails and bank statements showing wire transfers from the DLCC to WVEF and from WVEF to its media vendors.

Stay tuned…………………

Speeding Analogy Doesn’t Fly

The Capital Times and Wisconsin State Journal compare Brian Blanchard’s failure to charge Assembly Democrats for campaigning on state time to the kind of selective prosecution that occurs on the freeway; ---some drivers are pulled over and ticketed for speeding while others are allowed to keep on trucking.

While it’s true that some selective prosecution is inevitable, either because prosecutors lack evidence of a crime or law enforcement officials lack the resources necessary to investigate potential wrongdoing, these facts don’t apply in the case of the Caucus investigation.

To use the speeding analogy ---radar caught all four political caucuses going over the speed limit. They were all pulled over and every one of their vehicles was thoroughly searched. All of this was done at state taxpayers’ expense.

The evidence available to us so far suggests that Shirley Krug was not only speeding, she was driving under the influence of alcohol with open intoxicants in the car. Yet rather than issuing a ticket or placing her under arrest, Blanchard gave Krug a ride home and never spoke of the incident again.

Documents made public for the first time last week, prove that what Krug did is worse than what Scott Jensen is charged with doing. Not only did Krug use state employees and resources for political campaigns, she operated an independent expenditure committee that funneled over $300,000 to the campaigns of four fellow Democrats. This is exactly what Chuck Chvala pleaded guilty to in the top count of his plea agreement.

Next week Chvala will go to jail and Shirley Krug has a new taxpayer funded job with the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District.

The Capital Times editorial praised Brian Blanchard for being responsive and not letting partisanship interfere with his duties. The editorial concluded:

Indeed, if in his desperation to point the finger of blame at others Jensen does turn up evidence of Democratic misdeeds that can be prosecuted, we are quite certain that Blanchard will take the appropriate action - just as he did when he charged Jensen with abusing the public trust.

Jensen’s point is that Blanchard discovered this evidence years ago, and rather than acting on it, he has gone to great lengths to conceal it from the public. Friday Blanchard asked the Judge to seal all future motions in the Jensen case so that more of his secret evidence would not be made public.

The news media should really be asking Blanchard why he isn’t eager to prove his impartiality by releasing all the evidence and testimony he gathered during the course of his investigation. Wisconsin taxpayers have right to know that their money was not used to target certain individuals while turning a blind eye to the clearly illegal actions of others.

The 9 1/2 Page Gap

Rosemary Woods poses at her White House desk to demonstrate how a single move could have erased the tapes, 1973. (AP File Photo)

Nearly three decades later, investigators "erased" several pages of testimony given by former Doyle Campaign Manager, Andy Gussert. Gussert testified that he took direction on the campaign from Doyle Aide Andy Cohen who was a State Department of Justice Employee at the time. Gussert also mentions Doyle Flak, Bill Christofferson and fundraiser Barb Candy but the details of his testimony have been redacted.

And Gussert helped Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard.

See the 9 1/2 page gap on pages 18-29 of the John Doe documents.

Did Blanchard Ever Investitgate Democrats?

In today's Capital Times, Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard defends his decision not to charge former Democratic Minority leader Shirley Krug for illegally operating an independent expenditure organization out of the State Capital. Krug's actions would have been illegal whether she was on state property or not. In contrast Blanchard has charged Representative Scott Jensen with three Class E felonies and one misdemeanor for using state employees and resources for political activities.

After reviewing documents made available Tuesday, I wonder whether Blanchard ever conducted an investigation of the Assembly Democratic Caucus. While the documents clearly summarize testimony by Democratic staffers regarding the activities of their leader and the Assembly Democratic Caucus, the case title listed in the summary documents is "ASSEMBLY REPUBLICAN CAUCUS."

Despite filing a comprehensive discovery motion early in the case, Jensen's legal team never received these documents from the District Attorney.

Even now, Jensen doesn't have all the information as several pages of these documents have been redacted. How can Jensen mount a defense if he doesn't have all the summary documents in the investigation against him?

Brian Blanchard has fought to keep the testimony in the John Doe investigation from becoming public. Why? Now that the investigation is over and Blanchard does not intend to file additional charges, why is he still refusing to release the testimony?

What was redacted from the investigative summaries and why? Will Blanchard agree to release the full testimony once all of the cases are closed or will he wait until after the November 2006 election?

What is Brian Blanchard trying so hard to hide?

Prosser & Stohl: Politics is Part of the Job

Friday Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard will try to convince Judge Daniel Ebert to prohibit Scott Jensen’s defense from presenting evidence and testimony regarding past political activity in the State Capital. Jensen has been charged with three Class E felonies and one misdemeanor for using state employees and resources to conduct political activity.

Today Jensen's Attorney, Stephen Meyer provided the court with summaries of the testimony Supreme Court Justice David Prosser and former State Senate Majority Leader Joseph Strohl are prepared to offer if permitted by the court. In their statements, the former legislative leaders explain how they too engaged in political activity and that they viewed it as an integral and widely accepted part of their job as leaders.

See the summaries below.


Summary of David T. Prosser, Jr.

Justice David T. Prosser, Jr., presently a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, previously served in the legislature from 1979 until 1996. From 1989 to 1994, he was the minority leader of the Assembly. In January of 1995, he was elected speaker and served in that capacity until the end of his term in 1996. He will testify as follows:

Scott Jensen served as caucus director of the ARC from 1987 through July of 1989. He served under my supervision and direction while I was minority leader in the Assembly. In January of 1992, Scott Jensen returned to the Assembly as a result of a special election as a legislator and became a member of the Republican leadership with me in 1993.

My duties as Speaker of the Assembly included keeping my party in the majority. This was a duty not only for me but also for every speaker that served while I was in the legislature. As minority leader, my duties included trying to have the Republican legislators attain majority status.

Being in the majority allows you or legislative members of your party to pass legislation that addresses issues that are deemed important and have been promoted by the party membership. It also allows individual members to pass legislation assisting their individual districts.

I have read the statement by Tom Loftus in his book that was published in 1994 that provides “If you are the Speaker or leader of the state Senate, raising money for targeted seats is as much a part of your job as pounding the gavel to call the house to order. It is your responsibility to keep your party in the majority. The caucus campaign committee is the vehicle. It’s your party.” I am in agreement with that statement but in addition to raising money, a leader must also recruit candidates, develop issues, and create an effective organization in order to maintain the majority. The caucus staffs were instrumental in achieving these objectives.

For example, during my term as a legislator and as a speaker, there were caucus members and caucus directors who participated in activities including but not limited to the following:

Campaign and political meetings in the capitol office;
Assisting the speaker and the elected leadership by recruiting candidates;
Gathering voting lists and target lists;
Setting up, attending and staffing fundraisers; and
Assisting legislators in creating and implementing office plans.

The Democratic leadership, members, and their respective caucuses were engaged in the same or similar conduct during my time in the legislature.

The same factors that are needed to maintain a majority ensure competition among the candidates and political parties that has the end result of improving the quality of state government.

The legislative branch is the political branch of government and a legislative office is a thoroughly political office.

For the most part, every activity that could be characterized as a campaign activity can be conceivably construed to be an act that furthers the legislative process.


Summary of Joseph Strohl

Joseph Strohl, earned a B.A. in Political Science from Northern Michigan University in 1968 and taught the class, American Government in high school until 1971. He then became Home Secretary for Congressman Les Aspen until 1978. He served in the legislature from 1978-1990 and was Senate Majority Leader for the time period 1986-1990. Since 1991 he has been a lobbyist for a variety of different organizations and groups. He would be expected to testify as follows:

He met Scott Jensen in 1984 when Mr. Jensen worked for WMC. He has dealt with Mr. Jensen relative to the legislative process in one capacity or another since that time.

As legislative leader, whether it is the Senate Majority Leader, Speaker of the Assembly, or the respective minority leader, there are duties above and beyond those of other legislators and legislative staff. One of the primary responsibilities of a legislative leader is to advance his/her caucus’ legislative agenda in an effort to obtain passage of legislation favorable to the agenda or to defeat legislation inconsistent with the agenda. This is tied into and part of the duty of the legislative leader to keep his party in the majority or as minority leader to attempt to obtain majority status.

Other duties of legislative leadership include responsibilities such as raising money, recruiting candidates, targeting key races, and developing issues.

Caucus staffs are instrumental in achieving these objectives. Elections typically address the same issues with which the various caucus employees have been involved in. Campaigns are an opportunity for candidates and the caucus staff to learn from the public and also to educate the public.

During the time period that I have been associated with the Wisconsin Legislature either as a legislator or as a lobbyist, the elected leadership and their respective caucus staffs have attempted to carryout the duties described above.

It is difficult if not impossible to differentiate between campaign activities and legislative activities, in part because every activity that could be characterized as a campaign activity can conceivably be construed to be an act that furthers the legislative process. Similarly, almost every activity that can be characterized as a legislative activity does in part have a campaign component.

While I served in the legislature, custom and practice related to fundraising was that one could ask for money either in person at one’s office or over the phone. However, one could not accept or receive checks in the Capitol and I strictly followed the practice of never discussing or in any way connecting legislative bills to fundraising.

Sympathy for the Devil

I never thought I’d say this, but I actually feel sorry for Chuck Chvala, and there are few less sympathetic political figures in Wisconsin.

Chvala is scheduled to begin a nine month jail sentence on February 13th for corruption charges. Last year Chvala plead guilty to two felony counts for using state workers and resources for political purposes, and for illegally running a third party organization that was active in the 2000 re-election campaign of State Senator Mark Meyer.

While prosecutors agreed to drop seventeen other felony counts against Chvala, including charges of extortion, documents released Tuesday reveal that Chvala’s counterpart in the Democratic Assembly, Shirley Krug illegally operated an independent expenditure organization from her own office in the State Capital during the 2000 election cycle. Krug has never been charged.

The evidence that former State Representative Shirley Krug engaged in political activities using state resources and state employees is solid. Page after page of testimony given by former Democratic Assembly Caucus staff describes how Krug used her office for fundraising and directing state paid campaign workers.

Testimony further explains that Krug was operating a political action committee (PAC) to conduct independent campaign expenditures in four targeted Assembly races. This activity would have been illegal whether Krug was on state property or not. Election laws prohibit campaigns from coordinating with third party independent expenditures. Krug’s testimony that she was unaware she was breaking the law is completely implausible and totally irrelevant.

When the Caucus investigation began in 2001, people described Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard as a dedicated yet somewhat naïve public servant on a mission to weed out corruption in the State Capital no matter what the political cost to himself or his party. After pouring through the recently released John Doe testimony, I see Brian Blanchard in a completely different light.

As the top law enforcement official in Wisconsin’s second largest county, Blanchard has tremendous power to decide who will be forced to answer for their actions and who will not. Last summer, Blanchard used his discretion to determine that a woman who left her infant in a hot car all day should not be charged in the child’s death.

If politics is organized hatred, Chuck Chvala was the Grand Master, using his power relentlessly to choose winners and losers based on what they were willing to do for him. In the end, Chuck Chvala is just another flawed politician corrupted by his power. What’s Brian Blanchard’s excuse?