Thursday, February 21, 2008

Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee Lacks The “Integrity” Part

I read Tom Basting’s letter in response to this story.  He’s the Chairman of the Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee.  I’m a bit confused.  He says:

I would like to apologize if your feelings were hurt by the email comments of committee member Bill Kraus, comments that were made in private by a private citizen exercising his First Amendment right of free speech.

He’s using the argument that the committee members were acting as private citizens and exercising their right to free speech.  Yet the emails in questions were sent between committee members and were discussing committee business.  I realize that Kraus was not speaking on behalf of the committee, but why is it unreasonable to question his statements regarding committee business? 

Let’s put this in another context.  Let’s say that there is a school board that is working on a project with a contractor.  They have some problems and the school board members email each other to discuss the problems with the contractor.  Are they acting as private citizens or as a school board? 

The committee that Basting chairs should be disbanded.  Not only has the revelation about their biases completely discredited them as a neutral body, but their rhetorically violent refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing or even the appearance of wrongdoing demonstrates their arrogance and bad judgment.

(12) Comments
Posted by Owen at 1829 hrs
Law + Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. Do they chuckle to themselves when they write out the “Integrity” in their group’s name? 

    It’s funny that they deride Gableman as the “only” candidate who has not agreed to bend over and take what they give him.  Like there is something wrong with him for not wanting to make a deal with the devil.  How dare he!

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 1939 hrs


  2. How is the WJCIC accountable under the open records law?

    How are they like a school board which is elected?

    Aren’t they a private org formed within the WI State Bar Association? Which I thought was also a private org?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 2051 hrs


  3. pjr,

    The only reason it was a public record is because one of them was using their government account.  They are not public records. 

    But the issue is, if they are talking about committee business amongst committee members, then why is that not relevant as people consider the character of the committee?

    Posted by Owen on February 21, 2008 at 2100 hrs


  4. why is that not relevant as people consider the character of the committee?

    I did not say it was not relevant.

    I just did not get the comparison to a school board.

    It would also seem like the members of a private committee, who were not using accounts that were subject to the open records law, would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 2138 hrs


  5. I just did not get the comparison to a school board.

    Sorry.  I thought of that and ran with it anyway.  It’s not the best of examples, but it’s all I could come up with at the moment.  Just pretend that it’s a private schooled board grin

    I agree with the expectation of privacy, but… this committee set itself up to give allegedly objective judgments about the race.  They were not elected or appointed by elected officials.  Because they are the Bar Association, their statements carry more weight with the media and the public because of a presumption of legal ethics.  The fact that they are clearly NOT unbiased in this election is important.  People should know that when this committee’s statements show up in articles, that they are not impartial observers.

    Posted by Owen on February 21, 2008 at 2144 hrs


  6. this committee set itself up to give allegedly objective judgments about the race.

    Come on Owen, that is like saying that WMC is funding Esenberg’s videos out of a desire to inject an objective opinion into the race.

    they are not impartial observers.

    Would apply to anybody or thing that is putting money into this thing.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 2227 hrs


  7. Would apply to anybody or thing that is putting money into this thing.

    Indeed.  And so the WJCIC should never be portrayed as impartial.

    Posted by Owen on February 21, 2008 at 2233 hrs


  8. Bastings should resign as presdient of the BAR and the committee should be disbanded.  These committees are fomred by “elites” who believe that they are vastly superior in both pedigree and intelligence to the rest of us.  They feel that they need to tell us how to vote.  They are charlatans.
      Kraus, someone I have known for over 40 years is a hustler and a liberal.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2008 at 0953 hrs


  9. Well Dohnal is against the group, so it must be unbiased.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2008 at 1030 hrs


  10. I am against the group whether it is biased, unbiased or partisan towards the conservative side.  We really do not need these self appointed Messiahs to tell us how we should think.  They are arrogant elitists whom I have fought for 40 years and will continue to do so.
      They look at us proletariats as complete dumbies, rednecks, unable to think for ourselves.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2008 at 1125 hrs


  11. We really do not need these self appointed Messiahs to tell us how we should think.  They are arrogant elitists

    Dohnal, would this include WMC, CFG and the beloved AFP?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2008 at 1131 hrs


  12. pjr, You said “I did not say it was not relevant.”  Does that mean, with all your nitpicking aside, that you not only understand Owen’s point, but agree with it?  If so, you hide the fact that you agree so well that is hard to determine…and you seem to do your best to make it look like you disagree with his point.  Why?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2008 at 1619 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.