Curious Timing

Daniel Bice has this little tidbit.

Or so it appears in the case of Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler.

To fend off criticism, Butler decided last year to go the extra mile, like his colleague Annette Ziegler, and notify all those in a case if his campaign receives cash from a party or lawyer in the matter.

In a recent case over the accidental death of a teen, Butler sent a letter explaining that his campaign had received money from three lawyers in the case.

“Because campaign contributions will in no way affect my judgment as to the outcome of this proceeding, I am writing to advise you of my decision to participate in this case,” Butler wrote on Jan. 10.

Then a funny thing happened.

One of the lawyers in the case, John O’Connor, gave another donation to Butler just a week later.

Then he did it again - weeks before arguing the case before Butler and the rest of the court.

The decision is pending.

In all, O’Connor has given $4,500, making him Butler’s second largest individual supporter. The incumbent justice is opposed by Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman.

Could it be that Butler’s letter, which said that campaign money wouldn’t bump him from the case, was taken as a fund-raising appeal?

Once again, I’m sure that the good folks at One Wisconsin Now and the like will be all over this.

UPDATE: Charlie Sykes has this bit of skepticism from Deb Jordahl.

There’s a fatal flaw in Mr. O’Connor’s explanation of why he gave $1000 more AFTER Butler sent a letter disclosing contributions in the case, Sustache v American Family Insurance: 

The first pro Gableman ad began running on February 21st and did not even mention Butler.  It was the Greater Wisconsin Committee who threw the first punch against Gableman days before.

In any event, O’Connor last two contributions for $500 each came on January 17th and February 4th of 2008. 

Butler’s letter disclosing the contributions dated January 10, 2008 and oral arguments in the case took place on February 29, 2008.

1. That’s kind of a nutty leap, isn’t it?

   Posted by on March 23, 2008 at 1018 hrs




2. I am not so sure how an attorney who is basically doing a case for free can be accused of trying to buy a result.  A pretty big leap.

   Posted by on March 23, 2008 at 1204 hrs




3. I do not want a Supreme Court that we cannot trust. It’s a bunch of nonsense for people to act like Butler is a saint when these type of things appear and when in nearly four years he hasn’t done anything that we know about to make our courts fair and impartial. I read that 50% of the high courts time is spent on judicial administration but we hear nothing about what he’s done.

   The nonsense that elections cause corruption in the courts also has to be stopped. Public funding will only give incumbants the advantage and would threaten free speech.

   Posted by on March 24, 2008 at 0631 hrs




4. So Mr O’Conner is saying that he was FOR Butler before Gableman was AGAINST him?

   Posted by dad29 on March 24, 2008 at 0803 hrs