Bruce Murphy
Murphy’s Law

Did Leonard Leo Save Scott Walker?

Federalist Society leader helped elect Wisconsin justices who killed John Doe probe.

By - Jan 2nd, 2024 01:59 pm
Scott Walker speaking at the 833 East groundbreaking event in downtown Milwaukee in 2014. Photo by Jeramey Jannene.

Scott Walker speaking at the 833 East groundbreaking event in downtown Milwaukee in 2014. Photo by Jeramey Jannene.

The Federalist Society is known for promoting conservatives to positions as federal judges and U.S. Supreme Court justices. Its longtime leader Leonard Leo has gotten considerable press coverage recently for working behind the scenes to help Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas get financial help and luxurious vacations from wealthy conservatives.

But Leo has also gotten involved in state judicial races, and in Wisconsin he helped elect two conservative state Supreme Court justices who voted to shut down a criminal investigation of Gov. Scott Walker, as a recent story by Pro Publica documented.

In March 2011, a Republican operative warned that “the Walker agenda is toast” if conservative Supreme Court Justice David Prosser was not reelected in the April election, as emails later leaked to The Guardian revealed. The documents also showed that Leo was a key figure in making sure Prosser was reelected. And he also helped conservative Michael Gableman win election in 2008. Both justices would vote to kill a John Doe probe that targeted Walker.

Pro Publica reports that Leo was directly involved in raising money for the Gableman campaign, passing along a list of wealthy donors with the instructions to “tell them Leonard told you to call,” a source told the publication. “All those people gave the maximum. Gableman won, the first time an incumbent was unseated in Wisconsin in 40 years.”

Three years later “state GOP operatives turned to Leo to boost Prosser. They hoped he would help them raise $200,000 for ‘a coalition to maintain the Court.’ Prosser won, by half a percentage point.”

The criminal investigation that Gableman and Prosser would vote to shut down began with a probe of Walker’s successful 2010 campaign for governor. As County Executive Walker had a private email system that was used to hide the illegal campaigning on public time his staff was doing. Two of Walker’s staffers, Kelly Rindfleisch and Darlene Wink, were convicted of campaigning on public time to help elect Walker as governor. Four other aides were also convicted of violating campaign finance laws, along with other charges, in the John Doe probe. Records of the investigation showed that Walker’s staff used a separate Wi-Fi system, private email accounts and different laptops to evade scrutiny of their activities, and operated a private router just 20 feet from his office.

As investigators dug deeper they found Walker’s campaign continued to evade the law during his successful 2012 recall campaign by illegally coordinating his campaign with the supposedly “independent” Wisconsin Club for Growth. GOP operative R. J. Johnson ran Walker’s campaign while serving as chief consultant for the Wisconsin Club for Growth, and there were many emails showing Walker secretly fundraised for the Club for Growth, that his staff advised the governor to “stress that donations to” the Club for Growth “are not disclosed,” and detailing meetings Walker had with donors who soon contributed to Club for Growth, including a check to the club with a memo line saying the check was for Walker.

Had this evidence ever been presented in court, a judge might have found this laundering of money through the Club for Growth allowed Walker to evade campaign laws that restrict the amount of donations made and require disclosure of the names of candidates. If proven, this would show that Walker was running a campaign that illegally used untold amounts of dark money to help win election.

But a 4-3 decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, written by Gableman and supported by Prosser, voted to shut down the John Doe probe. Conservative Justice Patrick Crooks dissented, blasting the majority for ignoring past rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court as well as a recent Seventh Circuit Federal Court of Appeals ruling to “terminate a valid John Doe investigation in an unprecedented fashion.”

While Leo’s support of Gableman and Prosser helped lead to this decision, it’s important to note their most important backers: an incredible 76% of Prosser’s campaign support and 69% of Gableman’s campaign support came from the Club for Growth and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, two groups pushing for the decision to shut down the Doe probe, as Urban Milwaukee reported. Of course, a number of the donors to these groups were probably solicited by Leo and the Federalist Society. We’ll never know how many.

But Leo’s biggest impact may have been on two later Supreme Court races. In 2016, as Pro Publica reports, “Walker had a vacancy to fill and had three people on his shortlist: two Court of Appeals justices and the former attorney for an anti-abortion group and Federalist Society chapter head, Dan Kelly. ‘Leo stepped in and said it’s going to be Dan Kelly,’ a person familiar with the selection told us. Walker denied speaking to Leo, who said he didn’t remember.”

At the time there was far more support for Mark Gundrum, a former Republican legislator who served alongside Walker in the state Assembly, helped write the state’s now-defunct ban on gay marriage and was a state appellate judge. “Forty-eight letters were sent to Walker on Gundrum’s behalf,” as the Wisconsin Law Journal reported at the time. “Of those, 19 came from trial-court judges throughout the state and 12 from members of the state Assembly. Also calling for Gundrum’s appointment were Jon Wilcox, a former justice, and the county executives of Waukesha and Manitowoc counties.”

But Leo had helped elect the two justices who saved Walker’s skin by killing the John Doe probe. Walker may have been so grateful that he let Leo pick the appointment. That turned out to be a huge mistake, as Kelly’s extreme views led to his defeat by Jill Karofsky in his bid for election in 2020 and then again in his comeback attempt in the 2023 election against Janet Protasiewicz. Those two elections helped tip the Wisconsin Supreme Court to a liberal majority. For that, it appears, Democrats have Leonard Leo to thank.

If you think stories like this are important, become a member of Urban Milwaukee and help support real, independent journalism. Plus you get some cool added benefits.

Categories: Murphy's Law, Politics

5 thoughts on “Murphy’s Law: Did Leonard Leo Save Scott Walker?”

  1. kmurphy724 says:

    Valuable history lesson, as always. “The mud on your feat going up the ladder, is the mud on your hands going down.” Karma is a b*tch.

  2. kmurphy724 says:

    *feet

  3. ZeeManMke says:

    1. Don’t forget federal “judge” Randa ordering the evidence of Walker’s crimes destroyed before there was even a prosecution. He was reversed in one day by the 7th Circuit. With judges in your pocket, you can commit a lot of crimes.

    2. A new law barring John Doe criminal investigations into politicians. Why would anyone need a law barring them from being investigated for committing crimes – unless they were committing crimes?

  4. gerrybroderick says:

    Thanks, Bruce. A great reminder. It is easy to forget all the past sins of the republicans given the ongoing flood of new ones
    they continue to commit.

  5. JonErik says:

    Did Leonard Leo save Scott Walker? It certainly sounds like it despite Walker’s denial and Leo’s faulty memory.

    With Leo’s involvement as liaison between Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito and their rich benefactors, there seems to be a pattern emerging with Mr. Leo as an influencer and a corrupter of the judiciary. I didn’t understand Leo’s role in the infamous State ex rel. Two Petitioners, et al v. Peterson decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2015 until Bruce explained how he was a “bagman” for the Prosser and Gableman campaigns in their Supreme Court races.

    It is likely that at least these two Justices were the subjects of Special Prosecutor Francis Schmitz’s Motion for Recusal in that case. It can’t be certain because that Motion was made public only after having been heavily redacted to black out the names of the Justices and the names of contributors whom Schmitz identified as having been involved in two or more unnamed Supreme Court races. To the extent Schmitz’s Motion was even comprehensible with the extensive redactions, it appears that he discerned coordination between these Supreme Court election campaigns and the “independent” expenditure groups going on by some of the same actors as were being investigated in the John Doe probe of the Walker recall campaign. Could one of these actors have been “GOP operative” R.J. Johnson?

    The State ex rel. Two Petitioners, et al v. Peterson proceeding is relevant because it raises the specter of judicial corruption now dogging Leo, Thomas and Alito as the Supreme Court takes up decisions involving former President Trump. Assuming that Gableman and Prosser were two of the Justices whom Special Prosecutor Schmitz moved to recuse, their nonresponse to that Motion raise grave questions about their ethics and the legitimacy of their decision to bar the John Doe probe. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley did recuse herself, as Attorney Schmitz noted in his Motion to Recuse. Why was there no response or record of any other Justice to that Motion to Recuse?

    Gableman went on to write the slipshod opinion in State ex rel. Two Petitioners, et al v. Peterson which held essentially that “coordination” between a campaign and “independent” expenditure group, i.e. corporate contributors providing free in kind services to a campaign to evade contribution bans or limits (it is still illegal for corporations to make political contributions to candidates’ election campaigns except for contributions to a segregated fund not to exceed $12,000 per year. Wis. Stat. sec. 11.1112.). But Gableman’s opinion holds (or seems to hold) that it’s a violation of the First Amendment to investigate a corporation for having evaded that limit by coordination. That was one of the points blasted by Justice Shirley Abrahamson in her dissent from Gableman’s decision.

    Were Gableman’s and Prosser’s (or others?) participation in State ex rel. Two Petitioners, et al v. Peterson and their votes to terminate Schmitz’s appointment as special prosecutor retaliation against Schmitz for making a Motion that questioned the ethics of two (or more) Supreme Court Justices? If the true facts were made public, I think there would be plenty of grounds for the Wisconsin Supreme Court and other Courts, including federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court to finally adopt stricter ethical rules pertaining to disqualification and recusal when the parties or their attorneys have given lavish gifts or paid large sums in support of their elections or their nominations and appointments.

    There’s no place in our system of just for lawyers like Leonard Leos who secretly parlay their connections to buy “justice” by greasing the palms of judges and justices.

Leave a Reply

You must be an Urban Milwaukee member to leave a comment. Membership, which includes a host of perks, including an ad-free website, tickets to marquee events like Summerfest, the Wisconsin State Fair and the Florentine Opera, a better photo browser and access to members-only, behind-the-scenes tours, starts at $9/month. Learn more.

Join now and cancel anytime.

If you are an existing member, sign-in to leave a comment.

Have questions? Need to report an error? Contact Us