Heh.
MADISON, Wis. – Staff at Wisconsin’s nearly extinct speech regulator misled their board about the agency’s deep involvement in a politically driven John Doe investigation months before the board authorized the probe, according to a new filingby plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Government Accountability Board.
More so, the latest court documents show GAB director and general counsel Kevin Kennedy approaching Lois Lerner, the former Internal Revenue Service agent also accused of targeting conservative groups.
Kennedy asked Lerner, then-director of the IRS Exempt Organizations division about the initial findings of the a secret investigation into 29 conservative groups and the campaign of Gov. Scott Walker. Kennedy, who has refused to tell the Legislature about his communications with the IRS, asked his close professional friend Lerner whether the information would be “something the IRS would be interested in looking at.”
So what is more of a threat to our liberty… a politician legally coordinating with a like-minded organization or two government bureaucrats colluding on a secret and illegal investigation into the lives of citizens of one particular ideology?
Someone should start looking into criminal charges for Kennedy.
Owen:
“a politician legally coordinating”, and “two government bureaucrats colluding on a secret and illegal investigation”.
You need to place these in proper context and include the timeline that makes then legal/illegal as claimed.
2 + 2 = 36 ?
Baldy,
Owen did place it in proper context. Both should be criminally charged for abusing their public office.
Shot and a goal for MHM !
kevin:
So you agree, both Kennedy and Walker should be prosecuted? I’ll agree with going after walker, but Kennedy is a stretch.
Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner, I have been TDY farther north.
When it was revealed that Walker was complicit in telling big donors where they could hide their six- and seven-figure campaign donations from public view, Mary Burke said it that’s not illegal, it should be.
Absent of what Kevin Kennedy did or did not do, what does everyone on the board here think? We’re about to transition into an era where campaign finance transactions will be conducted largely from public view. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
If a mining company, for example, wants to spend $750,000 to elect or defeat political candidates, should that money be disclosed, or should candidates or political parties be permitted to coordinate with entities that can keep the company’s campaign finance activity secret?
Does the public have any business knowing who pays for the attack ads that go a long way toward determining who gets elected to public office, which political parties hold legislative majorities and the kind of legislation that does or doesn’t get passed?
Have we legally defined bribery out of existence?
Pike:
Great question. I, for one, would like to know who on either side is paying for all the air time, print inches, and flyers.