The commission alleges that Trump’s fundraising committee and state Rep. Janel Brandtjen, a Trump ally, conspired in a scheme to evade campaign finance laws to support the Republican primary challenger to [state House Speaker equivalent, Robin Vos] in 2022.
Trump and Brandtjen backed Vos’s primary opponent, Adam Steen. Trump called Steen a “motivated patriot” when endorsing him shortly before the 2022 primary. Vos, the longest-serving Assembly speaker in Wisconsin history, defeated Steen in the primary by just 260 votes.
Steen is currently backing an effort to recall Vos from office.
The ethics commission alleges that Trump’s Save America political action committee, Brandtjen, Republican Party officials in three counties and Steen’s campaign conspired to avoid state fundraising limits in the effort to defeat Vos, steering at least $40,000 into the bid.
The ethics commission recommended that charges be brought against the Trump fundraising committee, Brandtjen, Steen’s campaign, eight other individuals and three county Republican parties. The commission alleges that those involved took advantage of Wisconsin laws that allow for unlimited donations to political parties, but then illegally steered the money to Steen. State law caps individual donations to Assembly candidates at $1,000.
Members of the ethics commission said in documents sent to county prosecutors that if they don’t initiate charges within 60 days, the commission will go to another district attorney or the Wisconsin Department of Justice.
Some additional info in this one - https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/02/23/wisconsin-ethics-commission-alleges-illegal-scheme-by-trump-fundraising-committee-and-rep-janel-bran/72711365007/
Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240223203742/https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/02/23/wisconsin-ethics-commission-alleges-illegal-scheme-by-trump-fundraising-committee-and-rep-janel-bran/72711365007/
Voters are filling two supreme court seats in two separate nonpartisan elections. Neither seat’s current occupant is seeking a new term, so at first glance it may look like the cycle will add two fresh faces to the court. But of the six candidates running for these two seats, four are already sitting justices on the court—they just want to shift into different seats than their own.
If justices who already sit on the supreme court win either of those seats, they would then need to resign from their current positions. This would create vacancies that would be filled by the state’s staunchly conservative governor, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a reshuffling that’s poised to accelerate the court’s shift toward a solidly right-wing majority.
As more people end up experiencing homelessness, they’re also facing increasingly punitive and reactionary responses from local governments and their neighbors. Such policies could become legally codified in short order, with the high court having agreed to hear arguments in Grants Pass v. Johnson.
Originally brought in 2018, the case challenged the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, over an ordinance banning camping. Both a federal judge and, later, a panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck the law down, saying that Grants Pass did not have enough available shelter to offer homeless people. As such, the law was deemed to be a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The ruling backed up the Ninth Circuit’s earlier ruling on the Martin v. City of Boise case, which said that punishing or arresting people for camping in public when there are no available shelter beds to take them to instead constituted a violation of the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause in the Eighth Amendment. That applied to localities in the Ninth Circuit’s area of concern and has led to greater legal scrutiny even as cities and counties push for more punitive and restrictive anti-camping laws. In fact, Grants Pass pushed to get the Supreme Court to hear the case, and several nominally liberal cities and states on the West Coast are backing its argument. If the Supreme Court overturns the previous Grants Pass and Boise rulings, it would open the door for cities, states, and counties to essentially criminalize being unhoused on a massive scale.