By Steven Kovac. Media: Theepochtimes
In the most expensive state judicial race in U.S. history, Janet C. Protasiewicz, a liberal, defeated conservative attorney Dan Kelly in April for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The record $23 million raised by or on behalf of the Janet for Justice campaign prompted a group of citizen investigators in Wisconsin to look into where all of the money had come from.
Election Watch, an election integrity watchdog group, has now asked the Wisconsin Ethics Commission to investigate campaign contributions made to Ms. Protasiewicz.
The complaint is based on a computer analysis of state and federal databases conducted by Election Watch.
The filing against Justice Protasiewicz is part of a broader nationwide investigation into how both Democrats and Republicans benefit from lax campaign finance rules that may result in violations of contribution limits.
Peter Bernegger, a data analyst with Election Watch, which filed the complaint, told The Epoch Times that the group’s research found that the Protasiewicz campaign has received a myriad of repetitive small contributions purportedly from the same individuals totaling at least $6 million.
According to the complaint, the official reports from the Wisconsin Campaign Finance Information System reveal that 234 of Justice Protasiewicz’s 38,169 contributors donated more than 10 times.
Election Watch has dubbed the observed repetition of thousands of small donations being made under the same name as “smurfing.” It’s occurring nationwide and has been detected down to the municipal election level.
Justice Protasiewicz didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Red Flags
A spreadsheet accompanying the Election Watch complaint details a number of questionable contribution patterns. To ensure the privacy of the contributors mentioned in this article, their names have been changed.
Wisconsin voter Mike K., a disabled 66-year-old, has supposedly contributed to various campaigns 6,812 times for a total of $97,021, according to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) database.
In an interview conducted by a licensed private investigator working for Election Watch, Mr. K. denied making that many donations, as well as the dollar amount.
The report of the interview reads: “The subject scoffed at the amount and stated, ‘Look where I am living!’ The subject was referring to the modest, run-down apartment on the second floor of a converted home.
“He stated he donates $5 at times but could never afford to donate over $90,000 in the last seven years.”
Mr. K. is listed on Wisconsin campaign finance records as donating to Janet for Justice 29 times for a total of $2,960, with many of the contributions occurring within a 90-day period.
A summary of an interview by the private investigator with Carol D., an elderly Wisconsin woman, reads: “Upon speaking with the subject regarding her political donation history, she denied making 9,463 political donations as well as $53,361 in donations.
“She stated that her husband allows her to make several political donations, but nowhere near $53,361.
“She also stated that she makes only several donations of $800 to $1,000 per year in a lead up to a big election, such as a presidential election.”
Ronald T., 87, is listed on FEC records as donating to candidates and committees across the country 14,524 times for a total of $324,228.
Mr. T. told the private investigator hired by Election Watch that he never made those contributions. Mr. T. is listed as a purported donor to Justice Protasiewicz’s campaign. He’s recorded to have given her $113.34 in mostly small increments.
Mr. Larry Z., an 84-year-old Wisconsin voter, purportedly contributed $856 to Janet for Justice in 71 separate transactions, ranging from $1.67 to $500 each, with many occurring on the same day or consecutive days. FEC records show Mr. Z. donating to various candidates and committees 15,520 times for a total of $62,410.
Protasiewicz campaign contributor Mary E., 75, of Maryland, is listed as donating to Janet for Justice 28 times for a total of $230. And, in elections nationwide, FEC records show Ms. E. donating 25,461 times to various candidates and political action committees in the past three election cycles.
All of the elderly donors interviewed were surprised when presented with their purported political contribution records from the FEC and Wisconsin campaign finance records.
Mr. Bernegger explained that both databases are constantly being updated, so an examination of the records represents a snapshot in time.
“The data an investigator sees this month will be somewhat different than he or she saw last month,” he said.
Christopher Gleason, an Election Watch computer expert, is one of the developers of the rapid search capabilities that have made it possible for citizen investigators to sift through gigantic quantities of government campaign finance data in seconds. He believes that the transaction patterns suggest that an algorithm is involved in the process.
Donations Exceeding Legal Limit
The Election Watch analysis revealed that six donors to the Janet for Justice campaign allegedly exceeded the state’s $20,000 legal limit for individual contributions.
Donor Glenda R., an elderly woman whose address is listed as a UPS store in Los Altos, California, is said to have given $31,452 to Janet for Justice.
One of the six donors, Conrad Q., exceeded the Wisconsin campaign contribution limit by $21,000. He’s listed as having donated four times. The address recorded on his entries matches a UPS store in San Francisco.
On all four of the data entries recording Mr. Q.’s donations, the address was in some way misstated or obscured.
According to the Wisconsin Ethics Commission, political donors aren’t required to provide their residential address but must include a valid and accurate street address. Out-of-state campaign contributions are legal in Wisconsin.
Small Donations
Many more possible violations of state law involving numerous small contributions were discovered in entries on Justice Protasiewicz’s campaign finance records, the complaint alleges.
The Wisconsin Campaign Finance Information System data show numerous single donors making a large number of very small donations ranging from $1.50 to $25. The contributions were often made on the same or consecutive days.
In some cases, Election Watch investigators found that groups of smaller donations added up to exceed the $20,000 legal limit for a single donor.
In Wisconsin, a contribution by an individual of less than $200 exempts the donor from having to disclose his or her place of employment.
What’s in a Name?
According to Mr. Gleason, incomplete or omitted data and the use of multiple variations of a person’s name, zip code, or street name could be intentional in order to obscure donors who have exceeded the legal contribution limit.
“Examination by the human eye would determine these are all the same person, but a computer would read each variation as a separate individual,” he said.
In the complaint, Mr. Bernegger provided the Wisconsin Ethics Commission with the following evidence from the Federal Election Commission database.
Discussion about this post