Scott Walker campaign-finance probe to continue, Supreme Court rules

The Supreme Court denied an appeal to halt an investigation into Scott Walker's gubernatorial campaign finances. 

Charlie Neibergal/AP
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker speaks during the Iowa Republican Party's Lincoln Dinner, Saturday, May 16, 2015, in Des Moines, Iowa.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a bid to stop an investigation in Wisconsin into possible unlawful coordination between potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker's gubernatorial campaign and conservative advocacy groups.

In denying an appeal by a conservative group called the Wisconsin Club for Growth, the justices left intact a federal appeals court ruling from last September that overturned an earlier federal district court decision that had halted the investigation.

Walker, a rising star in the Republican Party, is serving his second term as Wisconsin's governor after winning re-election in November 2014.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is currently considering separate cases concerning whether the investigation should continue. Attorneys representing the state-appointed investigators in the case noted in court filings that the investigation is dormant while the state court determines whether the alleged actions violated Wisconsin campaign finance laws.

The Wisconsin Club for Growth wanted the Supreme Court to throw out the appeals court ruling. The focus of the probe is on possible illegal coordination between Walker's campaign and conservative special interest groups in 2011 and 2012.

A federal judge in May 2014 stopped the probe after the Wisconsin Club for Growth filed a lawsuit accusing investigators of sidelining it from political activities and violating its rights to free speech, association and equal protection. Walker was elected governor in 2010.

In June 2012, he became the first governor in U.S. history to survive a recall election. The investigation was launched two months later and is also looking at recall elections in 2011 involving other candidates.

The case is O'Keefe v. Chisholm, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 14-872.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.