Friday, November 16, 2007

Gableman Modifies Website

So it begins...

State Supreme Court candidate Michael Gableman will change his campaign website to avoid a potential conflict with ethics rules that prohibit judges from asking for campaign donations, a spokesman said.

Until Thursday, Gableman’s website included a section that allowed supporters to make campaign donations. The section included a picture of the Burnett County Circuit Court Judge with the message, “Please make your most generous contribution.

“I greatly appreciate your support. I’m a common sense judge who believes the Wisconsin Supreme Court deserves a justice who is guided by the law, not a particular politician or political party,” Gableman stated in the Web message.

That request for a donation appears to contradict Wisconsin’s code of judicial ethics, which state that “a judge, candidate for judicial office, or judge-elect shall not personally solicit or accept campaign contributions.”

What do you think?  Is it a violation of the rules? 

I don’t think so.  A statement on a website is not a “personal solicitation.”  Unless you think that the little “spurs” link at the bottom of this post is a personal solicitation to you - just you - to please post a comment.

(9) Comments
Posted by Owen at 2024 hrs
Law + Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. I think you’re right. A statement on a website is completely different than, say, a targeted mailing, where you send solicitations to the members of the bar association, or even a mass mailing. But this raises the question:  how do judicial candidates in Wisconsin raise money if they can’t ask for it? Do they have to set up a PAC or something? I’m not tring to be smart, I’m curious. God knows the campaign finance laws here in Texas are a complete mess, but that’s how maney is largely raised, with mailers sent askng for it and candidates working the phones.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 2102 hrs


  2. A message like that on the donation page is a violation.  He did everything but literally ask for a contribution.  With that being said, it was a technical violation, they fixed it, so let’s all move on.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 2226 hrs


  3. I should have also said, that if that message was on another page on the website it would have been fine.  It is because it was on the contribution page.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 2227 hrs


  4. When did the “spurs” go back to plain ol’ comments?

    [oops.  Wendy posted this comment.  Owen must have been using my computer again…]

    Posted by Owen on November 16, 2007 at 2244 hrs


  5. How do we handicap this race against Butler?  Is this a primary again where the top two vote getters move on to the general election?

    Does Gableman have enough money or support from up-north to even come close to making this a race?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 2255 hrs


  6. So you really want to start talking about ethics and SC races?

    On the surface he is certainly more impressive than your last pick.

    And I have always thought that your post were,

    a personal solicitation to you - just you - to please post a comment.

    You mean it’s not true?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2007 at 0039 hrs


  7. OWN was rather quick to get at this on their blog.  Likely meaning, Cory’s been off playing PI again and the Cap Times is biting.

    Where’s our side’s Wetworks Operation?

    Posted by Kevin Binversie on November 17, 2007 at 0853 hrs


  8. This certainly has more substance than Fraley’s 7 degrees of Butler attack from a couple months ago.  With that being said, it seems that it was a mistake, it has been corrected, so let’s move on.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2007 at 1053 hrs


  9. The relevant provision says a judge shall not “personally solicit” a contribution, not “shall not make a personal solicitation.”  The language therefore places the focus on the judge and not the contributor, so any solicitation by the judge himself is a violation whether or not it is made with reference to a specific donor.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2007 at 2158 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.