Complaint That Butler Received Illegal Corporate Contributions
Dad29 is all over this Butler complaint.
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.
I thought that it was Gableman who was in the pocket of corporate Wisconsin. All of those ads must be confusing me.
Think this will get the same level of attention that Ziegler’s ‘conflict of interest’ did?
Posted by hsgbdmama on March 27, 2008 at 0829 hrs
I think this helps to explain why Butler hasn’t done anything in his years on the Court to make sure our courts are fair and impartial. Apparantly, skeltons in his closet keep him from holding other judges accountable for wrong doing.
It’s not campaigns that need to be changed to public financing, it’s justices like Butler that need to be changed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 0949 hrs
I’m going to be making phone calls for Gabelman tomorrow from Green Bay. I doubt this information will do little to change the race, the MSM will just put their head in the sand like they always do for the dems.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 1014 hrs
I understand what you’re saying about the MSM, however, you have to give the Wisconsin State Journal credit for not endorsing Butler. That’s very substantial.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 1041 hrs
it is interesting, the press had a bird about Annette Ziegler working on what would be considered routine foreclosure cases while her husband was on the board of the Mutual Bank that they were involved with. Their family never made a dime off of these foreclosures. The state ruled that anyone would have ruled the same way.
Now we show that Butler was receiving very important benefits from Freibert and Finerty for years and only paying $1,000 in Jan, 2008 for those services. At that time they had numerous cases before the courts that Butler was sitting on and Butler failed to disclose these involvements to both sides so they could challenge Butler or ask him to recuse himeslf.
Years back i gave Judge Larry Gram $10 donation to run for judge and when a case cam up before him involving me he recused himself. that is what is supposed to be done.
butler reeived far more than that in services from Freibert and finerty but not a word was said. this ill test the sincerity and abiltiy of theis ne board to watch over elctions.
Stay tuned.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 1128 hrs
Why is it illegal for corporations to make donations to campaigns, that’s a bullshit law.
Posted by Matt on March 27, 2008 at 1302 hrs
Matt -
You think that Butler was right and the law is wrong. Do you have any clue what justice is and why our courts should be impartial and fair?
“Loophole Louie” is very appropraite in light of these new revelations.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 1452 hrs
I don’t know anything about this situation in particular, but I think it’s bullshit that if you run a corporation/small business/whatever and you want to do some work for a candidate that you support that it’s illegal.
Posted by Matt on March 27, 2008 at 1635 hrs
How do you define in the law “some work”? What if you were running for the Assembly and you could not afford any staff, so I hired some at my business and they did a little work for me but spent most of their time working for your election. They would be paid for by the company along with benefits.
Fine?
Now what it Bank One decides they like your opponent better, so they see what you are doing and they hire ten people to sit on the phones raising money, getting yard sign locations, getting out the vote etc. All right ?
You would probably be unhappy.
Now we could change the law and allow “some work” and define it by saying no more than $200 wirth of postage, phone bills etc., but that is hard to control. So, instead they have just said that no corporation can commit any dollars to election efforts, unless prescribed by law, to the collection of PAC funds.
If you don’t like the law, change it. Draw up some new terms and lobby for them. But, for now the law is the law. That is that even a “minimus” contribution in the form of stamps etc. is wrong.
Butler, Friebert and Finerty are wrong. Butler should have told people about their backing when their cases came up before the court. Why do you think that they do it? To curry favor with the judges. It is wrong. So the whole bunch deserves censure and fines.
We will see what this new group does to define the law.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 1700 hrs
Stop ducking this question, Dohnal. GAB (Elections Board) records indicate Supreme Court Justice Pat Crooks is doing THE SAME THING! Are you going after him as well, or are you a shameless hypocrite?
Bueller? Bueller?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 2004 hrs
go ahead.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 2013 hrs
Wally -
Should Butler NOT be investigated because Crooks is doing the same thing?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 2201 hrs
We do not know that Crooks is doing the same thing unless you check all of his filings.
I don’t have time to check all of the politicos, but it is a good idea for people to do so.
Just using a business or law firm as the place to have your campaign committee is not improper, only if you do not reimburse them for services rendered.
Corporations cannot do in kind contributions.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 2213 hrs
Perhaps they should both be investigated. My point is that this is a common arrangement (judges relying on lawyers to serve as campaign treasurers and using the lawyer’s office as the campaign mailing address) and that it doesn’t necessarily mean that any law has been broken. I know a lawyer who did the exact same thing for a sitting Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge 20+ years ago.
Why did Dohnal file the complaint less than a week before the election? Because he knew that there wasn’t enough time for even a cursory review to be made and that any press generated would be negative. To the press’s credit, it hasn’t bit on what is most likely a red herring. There are likely two reasons for this lack of attention to the complaint: the timing and the credibility of the source.
Here’s another unrelated point that no one has raised. I attended a “performance” by Judge Gableman earlier this week and was handed one of his full color two sided brochures at the event. Believe it or not, he doesn’t even know how to spell the name of the law school he attended—its misspelled TWICE in the brochure!
This suggests one of two things. Either he is the least intelligent man ever to run for the Wisconsin Supreme Court or the folks at WMC are running every aspect of his campaign without any active participation from him (save showing up and spouting the stock answers he has memorized).
Hard to tell which answer is the correct one—stupidity or no control over his own campaign!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 0545 hrs
What’s really rich in all of this is that apparently the people behind a lot of this mess can’t tell the difference between John D. Finerty, Sr., and John D. Finerty, Jr.. The father volunteered his time as Buitler’s campaign treasurer and the son argued in front of Butler in court, but CFG and others are claiming they are the same person. Junior has never worked for or given money to Butler’s campaign and Senior has never argued before SCOWI.
Posted by folkbum on March 28, 2008 at 0600 hrs
Folkie, you’re a scream.
The issue is the OFFICE, not daddy/sonny.
Makes no difference who argued what, or who volunteered what. What DOES make a difference is the 8 years of free services.
Posted by dad29 on March 28, 2008 at 0727 hrs
Just using a business or law firm as the place to have your campaign committee is not improper, only if you do not reimburse them for services rendered.
So if the candidate had paid them, say 25 cents, for their work then it’d be okay? I’d bet you would argue that no, it would not be okay. However, then you get into areas where the government is deciding what is a fair price for services rendered, do you really want to go there? this law is bullshit.
I’m not saying they should get off the hook for breaking a bullshit law, the law is the law. I’m just saying it ought to be changed.
Posted by Matt on March 28, 2008 at 0748 hrs
Dad29- Part of the complaint is that Finerty, while serving as treasurer of Butler’s campaign, argued cases in front of the Supreme Court. Folkbum pointed out that Dohnal and others are confusing father and son who are not only different people but are at different firms.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 0900 hrs
You have to pay the correct amount for services or it is an illegal campaign contribution. Newspapers cannot give a lower rate to the candidate of their choice nor can TV stations. If you dont like the law then try to change it.
As for the timing. This has been worked on for quite awhile by lots of people and it would have been far better if the complaint had been filed a month ago like the complaint about Annette Ziegeler.That would have given lazy reporters like Stacy Forster of the Jounral time to check it out.
This will be properly studied after the election and we will see what this new board does.
It makes no difference who the attorney is that appeared before a court, it was the firm that was susbsidizing the Judge’s campaign committee.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 0918 hrs
Matt, the law was made because corporations did at one time trade money/favors for favorable rulings from judges. As shown here it is still being attempted. I would be interested to know if the law offices have had any questionable rulings in their favor by Justice Butler. The reason I largely ignored the Ziegler conflicts was because they were routine rulings that did not benefit the Zieglers and any judge would have ruled the same as she ruled. If the Butler rulings were likewise above reproach, I would not hold it against him as far as voting for him is concerned. Likewise their is no question (sadly) that justices are elected along partisan lines. Therefore, it is incumbent upon a person who is against Crooks to investigate Crooks. It would be great if there were enough people who would investigate everyone impartially, but the fact that Wally is questioning Dohnal as a source already recuses Dohnal from investigations concerning Crooks. You wouldn’t believe any positive findings anyway.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 0929 hrs
Matt, go back and read the history of this state, particularly the crusades of Bob Lafollette to rid the state of incredible corruption around the turn of the 20th century. In those days the railroads, timber interests, banks and a few others just paid people for their votes.
If you want to go back to tha,t then you should step forward and say so.
It is still possible for people to work for candidates they just have to follow the rules.
One rule that does need to be changed is the one that allows anyone to just advertise these lies about both candidates without disclosing who they are and who gave the money.
Ihave worked in a dozen supreme court races over the last 40 years and this is the wort.
it started with Walter Kelly and will it ever end?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 0937 hrs
Dohnal, are you suggesting that people who volunteer their time for a campaign are breaking the law? If I run for office and I ask an accountant friend to be my treasurer, we would be breaking the law if he agreed to volunteer, but it would be okay if I paid him his gouging market rates?
I’m also busy reading through CFG’s list of cases—the cases, not the list. It looks like FF&SJ;didn’t buy very much favor, if any, with Butler, as he ruled against their clients and their clients’ interests often. They represented Brian Burke, for example, and the court found against him. And to pump up CFG’s numbers, they list every single minor motion related to Burke’s case, some more than once.
Dohnal, unless you’re working from a different list of cases that show favors Butler’s done for FF&SJ;, your complaint looks even weaker than it did at first.
Posted by folkbum on March 28, 2008 at 0942 hrs
The law is very clear. Corporations cannot donate even one stamp to a candidate. if you own a business and you volunteer your time at the business to do something that is fine unless you are using corporate assets to do so. If you assign some work to an employee you are in violation. Employees cannot volunteer their time when on company time.
It does not make any difference if the attorney wins or loses a case, the judge must inform the parites involved of any conflict that he has. butler has not and that is an egregious error on his part.
Annette Ziegler wrongly heard rountine foreclosure cases etc. that came before her. With her husband on the board of the mutual bank that had the foreclosues befor her she should have informed people of that conflict. Since they were routine and in most cvases uncontested, she did not profit nor did her husand in any way, she still ws in the wrong.
Butler failed to do anything and he has profitted by the relationship with volunteer in kind work from the corporation. Trouble is the corporation cannot legally do in kind donations. If you buy the volunteer bit than the failure to inform is even worse.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 0955 hrs
See, folkbum that is the point isn’t it? Unless you are saying that what Butler is doing is not against campaign laws (and I don’t know the law enough to know for sure) and not against ethics rules, I agree with Dohnal that these are at least as egregious of an ethics violation as Ziegler’s. With about the same level value to the client. The Zieglers and West Bend Mutual didn’t make anything from her violations and the law offices haven’t been getting verdicts in their favor either. I seem to remember you had many choice comments against Ziegler, care to justify them?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 0956 hrs
Dang Dohnal got there first, and we both used egregious…cool.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 0958 hrs
Butler’s campaign has now confirmed to me that, in fact, Butler did recuse himself in a number of cases featuring FF&SJ;, particularly those involving Levinson, even though they remain on CFG’s list of cases. I will be posting my own update shortly.
Posted by folkbum on March 28, 2008 at 1007 hrs
A number doesn’t count, it must be all. You can’t be a little bit pregnant. I even spelled egregious right.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 1009 hrs
The Zieglers and West Bend Mutual didn’t make anything from her violations
I believe Mr Ziegler is paid for his board seat so yes they were making something from it.
If you mean did he have the seat because of her office or that he received some sort of additional benefit for each case are questions that will probably go unanswered.
As far as the bank making anything from them, I would hope they benefited in some way from taking a case to court and winning.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 1048 hrs
the question at hand is Butler. Ziegler did not get his seat on a mutual bank cause of his wife. His father, an old friend of mine, BC Ziegler was involved in finance far befoe this bank was even formed I believe.
The banks lose money whe they have to foreclose, eveyone knows that.
The ethics boards ruled that they did not profit from her rulings. Butler is profiting from not paying the going rate for office services that easily could be $1,000 per year exclusive of legal fees.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 1056 hrs
In that same sense then Butler is equally culpable. He is definitely benefiting from getting the benefits he has from the FF&SJ;law office. For those who do not read prior comments, the rulings on default loans with no defendant are unanimously in favor of the bank. They gained no additional benefits from having a man on their board who was married to a sitting judge. Neither did the husband and wife benefit unless you believe he got the job because his wife was a judge. If you believe that research it and post your findings.
Regardless of whether you believe Dohnal’s interpretation of campaign finance laws (I do in this case) the ethics violations seem to be equally egregious between Butler and Ziegler. pjr, your statement is pointless unless you are arguing that Butler’s actions are not infractions. Ziegler was in the wrong, no argument. Butler is equally in the wrong. Response?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 1101 hrs
It looks to me like, at most, three of CFG’s original 35 cases could possibly have had any Butler conflict-of-interest. Butler was not the deciding vote in any of those three cases.
Posted by folkbum on March 28, 2008 at 1135 hrs
It appears obvious to me that Ziegler broke the rules because she wasn’t afraid of what Butler and the Supreme Court would do.
Our forefathers chose judicial elections so that we would breakup judges covering for judges when the Supreme Court isn’t doing there job by holding them accountable.
How can Butler hold subordinate judges accountable when he has skeltons in his own closet? The research on Gableman has not shown anything that I’m aware of telling me that he ran a fair and impartial court. We need someone like that on the Supreme Court.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 1136 hrs
My comment was a direct response to your statement on the Ziegler’s.
If comment on the Ziegler issues are pointless why did you bring it up in the first place?
You obviously believe that there was no exchange of benefit, I don’t know.
When this was actually getting investigated after the election, Justice Ziegler stepped up to the plate and paid a pretty good size fine. That seems like a pretty good strategy to deter further investigation.
As far as Butler goes there has been so much contradictory info floating around that I haven’t had a chance to research it and be able to distinguish fact from fiction. It seems like you have.
Unless you and Dohnal believe that Ziegler’s violations warrant her being removed from the court what is the big deal and what bearing does it have on Butler’s fitness for office?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 1145 hrs
The research on Gableman has not shown anything that I’m aware of telling me that he ran a fair and impartial court. We need someone like that on the Supreme Court.
You might want to rethink that anon.
So you would be in favor of removing Ziegler and holding another election to help clean up the court?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 1149 hrs
pir -
I would only rethink it if there was new info available. If you have some please provide it.
Do you think that the court will clean up itself? I think we need to do one thing at a time. Butler is up to bat and we need to strike him out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 1157 hrs
It seems I have to repeat myself, comment 20:
The reason I largely ignored the Ziegler conflicts was because they were routine rulings that did not benefit the Zieglers and any judge would have ruled the same as she ruled. If the Butler rulings were likewise above reproach, I would not hold it against him as far as voting for him is concerned.
My point concerning Ziegler is that the same people foaming at the mouth against Ziegler are not foaming against Butler. Why? Sadly, partisanship is the answer. That is the bearing it has on this case. Not being partisan myself, I duly noted that it should not have any bearing on whether you vote for him or not. The Gableman ad was reprehensible. I don’t favor either of them. I will vote for Gableman strictly because he is less activist in my opinion, by my definition of activist.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 1201 hrs
has not shown anything that I’m aware of telling me that he ran a fair and impartial court.
So you will vote for him because he ran an unfair and partial court?
With supporters like you he doesn’t need any detractors.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 1208 hrs
So activism tips the scale in favor of reprehensible.
Have a nice day.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 1214 hrs
So pjr, the misspoken word and debating an argument as if there were only one side or out of context is the best you can do? Its liberals like you that make conservatives overconfident…IRAQ!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 1214 hrs
The complaints are really quite different. We have a ruling that says that Ziegler should have recused herslef even though she did not receive any benefit. Butler meanwhile is receiving direct benefit and has failed to recuse himself. Whether that affected a case or not is irrlevant as the attorneys might have done something different if they had know that Butler was compormised.
Further, the attorneys that are involved are considered the democrats top guys i this area and the paltry $1,000 paid in January by Butler is an admission that he had to pay for services previouls un paid for by him. For 9 years of services shows that they believed they could have a problem.
I have managed and been the treasurer for many campaigns. It takes hours of work to enter all of the donations, averaging about 50 dollars or so plus pay out all of the bills. When hundreds of thousands of dollars are involved it is huge.
whose computer did they use? There is not any expenditure for the purchase of a computer. Who bought the software? Who paid for the postage for the thank yous? Who paid for the time of the people in the office when they made phone calls for raising of money?
All of these things aer kept in intricate detail in a law office. Unless they disappear like Hillar’ys billing records they will tell us the story. You will find thousands of dollars of expenditures on those records, far more than “in minimus”.
Now some of you believe that that should be okay, but right now it is against the law and this new board will have to make a ruling on this.
The Butler forces and the attorneys involved are shaking in their boots cause no one knows what this new board will be doing. Could be tough on them.
Since Finerty and Freibert are at least as smart as the people I deal with, they should have known to do this the correct way. But, they have become arrogant with power.
the worst problem we have is the incredibly lazy press int this state. They should have uncovered this, but doing hard work probably takes times away from sipping lattes at Starbucks. You can lay the whole thing in their lap and they still can’t figure out what is going on.
Doyle will probably pardon them, they think.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 1224 hrs
So instead of saying that people who were ‘foaming at the mouth over the Ziegler ethics problems should be foaming now’, I could have said they should be ‘apopleptic now’, because this was not only ethically wrong, it was also against the law? Ok, but my point is the same. Most people who were silent on Ziegler before will be calling for Butler’s head while those who railed against Ziegler are now the ones saying, ‘I don’t think there is enough information, blah, blah, blah.’
pjr, as always with the context problems, if I couldn’t vote for anyone with reprehensible ads, I couldn’t vote. I refuse to restrict myself in that way. Gableman is not reprehensible to me, an ad he ad hoc condoned was reprehensible. That is only average in the reprehensibly negative campaign record book… like Clinton’s and Republicans calling Obama a racist.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 1242 hrs
Dohnal -
I’m in agreement with what you’re doing but I’m in complete disagreement with you making it appear that it’;s okay for Judges to break the rules as long as no-one can prove they benefitted from it. You know that is not part of the rules and is very misleading.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 1522 hrs
You have to pay the correct amount for services or it is an illegal campaign contribution. Newspapers cannot give a lower rate to the candidate of their choice nor can TV stations.
What if you don’t have set prices? Who decides what is the “correct amount” to be paid for services?
Matt, the law was made because corporations did at one time trade money/favors for favorable rulings from judges.
That’s called bribery and I bet that was probably already illegal before this law was passed. Correct me if I’m wrong. Or is it still okay for individuals to trade money/favors for favorable rulings from judges?
I think there should be complete transparency about where money, services, and etc are coming from in a campaign, but I think everyone, should be FREE to donate to causes they believe in.
Posted by Matt on March 28, 2008 at 1606 hrs
I have never said that it is okay for judges to break the rules. Ziegler should have recused herself even though it was a cut and dried situtation. She did not benefit from it so that it isn’t a major thing sort of like if I would send a candidate some stamps from my company for a contribution, of a minimal amount, versus having them set up their whole campaign finance HQ in my office. Both would be illegal but the degree of sentence is wrong.
Major larceny vs minor larceny in criminal terms.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 1611 hrs
I think there should be complete transparency about where money, services, and etc are coming from in a campaign, but I think everyone, should be FREE to donate to causes they believe in.
Yep.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 1924 hrs
Did the Ziegler’s not get a loan from the bank just before or during her candidacy?
I honestly don’t remember but I bet somebody out there does?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 1928 hrs
No one has mentioned it yet but I believe that Frebiert, Finerty et al have committed serious violations of the IRS code by expensing items used for Butlers campaigns. This is grossly illegal and I intend to inform the IRS of these violations.
Between the IRS and the other boards we shoudl get a good reading on this.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2008 at 0754 hrs
Total Entries: 19642
Total Comments: 129731
Most Recent Entry: 02/07/2012 09:25 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/08/2012 12:44 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 137
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/08/2012 12:57 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).