Wisconsin's Republican Supreme Court Justices say, $10,000 or more in campaign contributions would never buy their vote! Don't Laugh....

Excuse me, where does the Constitution spell out money as free speech? 

Thanks to Scalia's Supreme Court, we're all supposed to believe that unlimited amounts of money won't buy someones gratitude or earn them special favor. "Money corrupts" was always a meaningless silly old saying, at least according to big monied special interests in Washington. 

Every one of the states conservative justices feigned outrage over the suggestion of influence: 

The Wisconsin Supreme Court threw out a proposal to create formal recusal rules for judges and justices in the state ... 5-2, with Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley opposed ... the court's conservative-leaning majority voting to throw the petition out and the liberal-leaning wing voting to hold a public hearing on it, or adopt it immediately (for) all elected judges in the state who serve in municipal court, circuit court, the Court of Appeals or the state Supreme Court.

Despite being a national embarrassment, our dysfunctional state supreme court added to their legend by insulting our intelligence, saying campaign donations of $10,000 and over would never influence their decisions from the bench. Silly us to think that, or think that there is at least an appearance of impropriety. Remember, these are Republican Justices in the pocket of special interests who paid for their winning campaigns. Why would they would they ever have to recuse themselves? Crazy us?

It proposed specific contribution thresholds for when a judge or justice would have to recuse himself or herself from a case ... if they received $10,000 from a group or individual with a case in front of the court.

Our silent until now, recently elected (unopposed) Justice Ziegler had this to rub in our faces, like we're dumb enough to believe her;

Justice Annette Ziegler: “The petitioners here have asked us to do something that doesn’t comport with the Constitution as I view it. Is there precedent that supports this somehow? And the answer is no.”

(The) 60 comments on the petition submitted to the court. (means there's) high degree of public interest that warrants a public hearing on the issue, said Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. “What is so threatening about that?” 

Justice Rebecca Bradley said the premise of the petition is false and an affront to the oath taken by Supreme Court justices and judges statewide. “We cannot consider the petition. To do so violates the oath that each of us took when we took our office.” It also disenfranchises voters statewide who should be free to contribute to judicial candidates without repercussions, she said. “It asks us to infringe the First Amendment rights of the people of Wisconsin who wish to support candidates,” she said.

The Supreme Court lost the Public Trust a Long Time Ago: This just continues, without accountability, the public's complete lack of faith in the judicial branch of our government. Mission accomplished Republicans: 

Abrahamson called for a public hearing on the petition and Walsh Bradley called for it to be adopted immediately. Both motions were voted down after some discussion, which was tense at times. 

“The issue is so important and to shut it down without a hearing and without comment just undermines the public trust and confidence that is so important for the integrity of this court,” said Walsh Bradley. “It goes to the heart of who we are as a court and what we believe.”

And you wonder why voters don't trust the government. We can thanks our conservative activist Justices...maybe with donation exceeding $10,000?

Walker Justice Candidate Bradley's "There is no conflict of interest" Republican "Cocktail Reception" flush with GOP Cash!!!

It's just a simple invitation with no political slant whatsoever. CapTimes:

Join Justice Rebecca Bradley and Special Guests: Senator Alberta Darling & Rep. John Nygren for a Cocktail Reception. Host Levels: $2500/$1000/$500   General Attendee: $100

These Republican co-chairs of the Legislature's budget committee, who know just where the special interest money is since they've been taking it for years themselves, are just good citizens exercising their free speech rights. What, no qualms about the lack of Democratic attendees?

But Bradley's campaign says their support is no different than a standard campaign endorsement.

Republican voters will look past this supreme court sell out to special interest money too, by reminding us matter of factly, "losing sucks."  

In a Facebook post published over the weekend, Appeals Court Judge Gary Sherman wrote that the fundraiser makes "plain for all to see" the "coordination between the Supreme Court and the political branches of our government."

Taking that Citizens United idea that money does not have a corrupting influence to the next level:

Justice Bradley has always stated that she follows the rule of law and swore an oath to uphold the Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions as they are written, not by who endorses her campaign."

Republicans provide corruption an extra layer of "Constitutional" Protection.

Pocket constitutionalists love to imagine rights violations everywhere. From nonsensical free speech rights to proposals for constitutional tests for everything, the new incoming pocket constitutional House Republicans have come up with another wacky interpretation that can protect them from the actual law itself. The Hill:

The House of Representatives this week quietly approved changes to ethics rules that government watchdogs fear could help lawmakers obstruct investigations. The provisions from Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) takes aim at the House Ethics Committee and the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), specifying that neither body can “take any action that would deny any person any right or protection provided under the Constitution of the United States” … any person under investigation “shall be informed of the right to be represented by counsel and invoking that right should not be held negatively against them.”

The OCE was created by Democrats in 2008 after they promised to “drain the swamp” of corruption in Washington.

Like Wisconsin Republicans stacking the courts with conservative activists, politicizing election oversight, pushing the constitutional boundaries whenever possible, and vowing to dismantle John Doe investigations, Congress is following suit. The line below, "on constitutional grounds as determined by members themselves," pretty much says it all. Nowadays, anyone can be a constitutional scholar:

Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, said the new language … is troubling because it turns the informal review of a complaint into a more formal legal proceeding … can be delayed and even derailed altogether,” Holman wrote. "The intent of this clause is to provide members with an additional authority to complicate ethics investigations. Even though all constitutional rights already apply to the ethics proceedings as determined by the courts, this clause ... enables challenges to ethics proceedings on constitutional grounds as determined by members themselves," he added.

Dumb Ron Johnson: "Put it all in perspective. Are we spending too much money on Halloween candy? Are we spending too much money on free speech...?"

Yes, Dumb Ron Johnson did make that comparison, including what we also spend on peanut butter ...on the MIC 92.1 Devil's Advocates show: