A Dane County judge ruled Friday that the names of legislative employees who are receiving state-funded legal advice in investigations of alleged illegal campaigning must be released.
“The public interest in disclosure is clear,” Judge Sarah O’Brien wrote in her decision. “Taxpayers of a community have the right to know how and why their money is being spent,” she said, citing a 1994 Court of Appeals case.
The investigation began with a focus on four caucus staff members — one for each party in each House. Some caucus staffers campaigned for partisan officials on the state’s time, the investigation found. Since, legislative caucuses have been abolished as part of a settlement with the Ethics and Elections boards.
Legislative leaders have also been accused of offering to trade political favors for campaign donations and engaging in campaign fundraising by lawmakers and other legislative employees.
The investigation has cost the state more than $500,000, and the investigation continues without a spending cap. Both Houses voted last summer to use public money to pay the legal fees of lawmakers and legislative employees under investigation.
The Wisconsin State Journal, along with the Capital Times and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have filed on open records lawsuit after the names were withheld by Senate Chief Clerk Donald Schneider and Assembly Chief Clerk John Scocos.
According to Wisconsin’s Open Records Law, all government documents are presumed to be public except in narrow circumstances.
The clerks said the billing records would violate secrecy of a John Doe investigation in Dane County. They also claimed making the names public would be an invasion of privacy as well as a violation of attorney-client privilege. Schneider also claimed that making the names public would violate confidentiality pledges he made.
O’Brien said the reasons were insufficient to block the release of documents.
In her decision, O’Brien said the two clerks would have no way of knowing the impact if the names were released.
“It should be clear to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of a John Doe proceeding that witnesses called are not necessarily suspected of wrongdoing,” O’Brien said
The clerks claimed that if the names were published, the reputations of the employees and lawmakers would be tarnished. They also claimed that if the names were published, individuals would be harassed by reporters.
O’Brien said if witnesses were contacted by the media, it is the job of the witness, not the clerks, to uphold their secrecy order.
The trial proceedings have been conducted in secret, although some names have been released after witnesses were granted immunity. This has meant that some witnesses have already been identified.
