NYT v Gov Scott Walker

For John, BLUF:  Too much prosecutorial zeal is worse than a little crime.  Blackstone.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

My Brother Lance forwarded me a URL and a comment, regarding the current Scott Walker dust-up.

There clearly is plenty to fear from independent spending groups that raise unlimited dollars.

I already blogged about the larger issue here, but this Editorial is very disappointing.  Where is Jill Abramson when you need her?  Oh, off at Harvard, teaching.

From the Editorial at The New York Times:

That’s why it is important that prosecutors like the ones in Wisconsin aggressively pursue violations of similar state laws against coordination with outside groups.  In the Walker case, a federal judge and a state judge have, disappointingly, already agreed with the governor’s argument that the “issue ads” were not political, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is reviewing the case and may let the prosecutors proceed with their investigation.

If the rules against coordination are lifted, wealthy donors will achieve their dream of donating unlimited millions directly to candidates.  The Walker case shows how important it is for government at all levels — Congress, federal agencies and state officials — to put severe curbs on the ability of outside groups to meddle in politics with unlimited dollars.

OK, so we want prosecutors to "aggressively pursue" even when there is a violation of Constitutional Rights?  That is just plain Fascist.  And, what makes people an "outside group"?  Illegal immigrants?  Canadians?  The Chinese?  That is, again, a Fascist approach to this issue.  Plain and simple.

Do I think there should be some limits on campaign donations?  Of course I do.  Do I think that outside groups should be able to advertise their opinions?  Of course I do.  It should be open for that Eugenics Group, Planned Parenthood, as well as for right to life groups.  I am dubious about drug cartels being allowed, but then maybe they are the "outside groups" to which the Old Grey Lady is referring.  On the other hand, the recent Republican Primary in Virginia, in which then House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost, shows that money isn't the controlling factor.  A bestirred electorate is the controlling factor.

Remember, from A Man For All Seasons, where More is talking to his son-in-law, William Roper:

William Roper:  So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More:  Yes!  What would you do?  Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper:  Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More:  Oh?  And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?  This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?  Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

And here and here is Law Professor Ann Althouse, plus this quote:

Looking around at some local Madison sites and at some less-local lefty sites, I see a scary love of prosecutorial aggression and overreach.  The slavering enthusiasm is so off-putting, so much at odds with the liberal values I believe in, that I feel pushed away onto the side of conservatives with whom I have little reason to affiliate.

What this all leads to is what Law Professor Glenn Reynolds talks about in his paper, Ham Sandwich Nation. Regards  —  Cliff