Eric O'Keefe

Eric O'Keefe

Eric O’Keefe is a political strategist. O'Keefe is most well known for his support of term limits and for his involvement with the Campaign for Primary Accountability.

He believes that politicians became less accountable and less responsible starting when state governments took over the printing and distribution of ballots from private political parties.

O'Keefe has argued in several papers that those who support limitations on the size and power of government should adopt what he refers to as the "Seven Capacities" approach to achieving accountability and limits on government.

O'Keefe was one of the many conservatives targeted in the second John Doe investigation related to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R). O'Keefe violated the gag order that is a hallmark of John Doe investigations, shedding light on what he contended was a politically-motivated witch hunt.

He also filed two lawsuits against multiple parties involved in the investigations, one alleging the investigations were unconstitutional violations of the targets' First and Fourth Amendment rights and the other claiming the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB) had no statutory authority to participate in a criminal investigation.

Past experience

He is a founding board member of a term limits advocacy group, U.S. Term Limits. He drafted the plan for a term limits sweep across the country in 1992 and 1994. By early 1995, voters in twenty-three states had limited the terms of their U.S. congressional delegations through the ballot initiative process.

In the case of U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, five judges on the Supreme Court nullified the preferences of those voters, asserting that states do not have the right to determine the conditions under which their representatives in Congress will serve. However, term limits governing state legislatures remained in force. Fifteen states now have term limits on their legislative representatives.

He is the past chairman of the Sam Adams Alliance, a former organization that cultivated citizen activism.

Americans for Limited Terms lawsuit

O'Keefe served as president of Americans for Limited Terms (ALT) from 1996 to 2000. In congressional election cycles in 1996 and 1998, Americans for Limited Terms ran issue ads in a number of congressional districts, advising voters about the positions on term limits held by their congressional candidates.

One of these ads generated a lawsuit against ALT (ALT prevailed) claiming that the ad was "express advocacy" rather than an "issue ad."

In 1996, ALT ran a $24,000 radio ad campaign in a Wisconsin race that showcased the opposition of State Assemblyman (D), David Travis to term limits. Travis and the elections board responded by suing Americans for Limited Terms stating that the ads were "express advocacy" instead of "issue ads."

O'Keefe was quoted in an article defending his position,

There's an effort by incumbents to clamp down on issue ads because it's the only area of campaign spending that's tilted against incumbents. In my view it's among the most important campaign spending because it's an outlet for dissenting voices. It's extremely vital in democracy.

Other involvement

O'Keefe talking about the history of political parties in 2007

O'Keefe serves on the Board of Directors of Wisconsin Club for Growth, the Institute for Free Speech, Citizens in Charge, and Citizens for Self-Governance. Prior to 2007, O'Keefe served on the board of directors of Americans for Limited Government. O'Keefe served on the Board of Directors of The Institute for Humane Studies until 2013.

In early 2008, O'Keefe argued that a commission recently created in Wisconsin to monitor judicial elections was itself partisan, and therefore unreliable as a judicial watchdog group.

In 2001, O'Keefe assisted in cleaning up a business, Votenet, of which he was a part-owner. Votenet, as court records show, was victimized by two of its employees who were later convicted and imprisoned for their financial fraud. Although an attorney recommended that the company declare bankruptcy in order to step away from the financial destruction caused by the felonious employees, O'Keefe recommended against that course of action, enabling the company's creditors to be repaid and the company ultimately to stay in business.

John Doe investigations

See also: John Doe investigations related to Scott Walker

Background

Two John Doe investigations were launched by Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm (D) into the activities of staff and associates of Gov. Walker (R). These investigations and the events surrounding them have been described as "the most tumultuous political events in Wisconsin in generations—perhaps in history."

The first investigation, John Doe I, was launched after Walker aide Darlene Wink noticed funds were missing from the money raised by Operation Freedom, a charitable event for veterans that Walker hosted annually. Walker's office turned the case over to the Milwaukee County DA's office to investigate the missing funds.

Over a year passed before the DA's office began investigating the case. By this time, Walker had announced his candidacy for Governor of Wisconsin. On May 5, 2010, Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf asked for the authority to launch a John Doe investigation into the missing funds. He asked for the John Doe on the premise of determining where the funds had originated (i.e., sponsors and donors of the Operation Freedom Event). His request was granted by Judge Neal Nettesheim, who had been appointed the John Doe I judge.

During the 2010 gubernatorial campaign, the John Doe investigation was expanded multiple times to include a Walker donor and members of Walker's county executive staff. The homes, offices and cars of these people were raided and searched, and property, such as computers and cell phones, was seized. The investigation lasted three years and resulted in the convictions of six people, four of whom weren’t related to the missing funds on which the investigation was predicated. The announcement of the charges against the six were made in January 2012, in the midst of an effort to recall Gov. Walker due to his support for Act 10.

On June 5, 2012, the recall election attempting to remove Gov. Walker (R) from office was held. Walker won re-election by a wider margin than he had when originally securing the office in 2010. In August 2012, the first John Doe investigation was rolled into a second investigation, John Doe II. This investigation was based on a theory that Governor Walker’s campaign had illegally coordinated with conservative social welfare groups that had engaged in issue advocacy during the recall elections.

The second John Doe investigation spanned multiple counties but was consolidated into one investigation, overseen by an appointed judge and one special prosecutor, Francis Schmitz. During the early morning hours of October 3, 2013, investigators served search warrants on several homes and subpoenaed records from 29 conservative organizations. Several weeks later, on October 25, 2013, three targets of the subpoenas filed a motion to have the subpoenas quashed. The judge overseeing the investigation, Judge Gregory Peterson, granted that motion in January 2014, stating that the prosecutor's theory of criminal activity was not, in fact, criminal under Wisconsin statutes. Although Schmitz filed an appeal to a higher court, the investigation was effectively stalled.

A series of lawsuits were filed, one against the John Doe prosecutors for a violation of free speech and several others against the agency that oversees campaign finance law, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB), for trying to enforce unconstitutional regulations of issue advocacy groups, the regulations on which the prosecutor's theory was based.

The legality of the investigation eventually went before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. On July 16, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in a 4-2 decision to officially halt the John Doe II investigation. The court combined three cases into one, thereby simultaneously ruling on all three. In its ruling, the Supreme Court criticized Schmitz's handling of the case and declared the actions of Chisholm and Schmitz were violations of the targets' First Amendment rights to political speech.

The Supreme Court, in interpreting Wisconsin's campaign finance law, ruled "that the definition of 'political purposes' [...] is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution because its language 'is so sweeping that its sanctions may be applied to constitutionally protected conduct which the state is not permitted to regulate.'"

The court noted that since issue advocacy is "beyond the reach of Ch. 11," Schmitz's theory of illegal coordination between Walker's campaign and social welfare groups was invalid. The court further declared "the special prosecutor's legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law," thereby declaring an official end to the John Doe II investigation.

Regarding the other two cases addressed in the ruling, the court denied Schmitz's supervisory writ and affirmed Peterson's original motion to quash the subpoenas. It also ruled that the John Doe II judges, Peterson and Barbara Kluka before him, had not "violated a plain legal duty" by allowing the appointment of one judge and one special prosecutor to preside over a multi-county John Doe, though the court did concede "the circumstances surrounding the formation of the John Doe investigation raise serious concerns."

In its ruling, the court ordered that "everything gathered as potential evidence—including thousands of pages of emails and other documents—be returned and all copies be destroyed." Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel (R) said the court's decision "closes a divisive chapter in Wisconsin history."

O'Keefe's involvement

Eric O'Keefe et al v. Francis Schmitz et al

See also: Eric O'Keefe and Wisconsin Club for Growth, Inc. v. Francis Schmitz, et. al.

On November 18, 2013, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial on the John Doe investigations, headlined, "Wisconsin Political Speech Raid." Eric O'Keefe, one of the targets served a subpoena on October 3, 2013, had come forward to tell about what he considered the targeting of conservative organizations by the investigators. O'Keefe's organization, the Wisconsin Club for Growth (WCFG), was one of the targets of the investigation.

On February 10, 2014, O'Keefe filed a federal lawsuit stating that the investigation was used as an instrument to shut down conservative speech and therefore violated the targets' First Amendment rights. “This secret investigation and gag order on conservative activists is intended to stop their political successes in Wisconsin. The state cannot be allowed to silence political speech it does not like," said O'Keefe. The plaintiffs included both O'Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth. He filed suit against Chisholm and Special Investigator Francis Schmitz; two ADAs under Chisholm, Bruce Landgraf and David Robles; a GAB investigator, Dean Nickel; and John Doe II Judge Gregory Peterson. The lawsuit asked the federal courts to shut down the investigation and to award damages.

The suit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. It was assigned to Judge Rudolph Randa, who was appointed by former Governor Tommy Thompson (R). The prosecutors-turned-defendants suffered a series of losses, including an order in May 2014 for a preliminary injunction that halted the investigation. Randa had previously denied the prosecutors' motion to dismiss the case and their motion to stay the proceedings while they appealed that ruling.

In Randa's order for the stay, details of the raids on October 3, 2013, were revealed. Randa wrote:

"

Early in the morning of October 3, 2013, armed officers raided the homes of R.J. Johnson, WCFG advisor Deborah Jordahl, and several other targets across the state. ECF No. 5-15, O‘Keefe Declaration, ¶ 46. Sheriff deputy vehicles used bright floodlights to illuminate the targets‘ homes. Deputies executed the search warrants, seizing business papers, computer equipment, phones, and other devices, while their targets were restrained under police supervision and denied the ability to contact their attorneys.

”

Prosecutors filed an appeal with the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

On May 28, 2014, it was reported that Schmitz was in negotiations with Steven Biskupic, the attorney for the Walker campaign.Other conservative targets were concerned they would be sold out as part of the deal and expressed anger and a feeling of betrayal. Schmitz ended the negotiations after they became public and there was a question as to whether they violated Randa's injunction order. Facing a possible contempt charge, Schmitz asked Randa to clarify if the injunction covered talks with attorneys representing targets who were not party to a suit. In Randa's filing in response, he wrote that the injunction was very clear and ordered Schmitz to provide copies of the injunction to all of the targets.

On September 9, 2014, the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments on the appeal. During arguments, Judge Frank Easterbrook questioned the constitutionality of the secrecy orders, stating they were “screaming with unconstitutionality.” Judge Diane Wood focused on why the suit was filed in federal court. O'Keefe's attorneys pointed to the fact that the Wisconsin Supreme Court had yet to take up the cases filed in state court.

On September 24, the Seventh Circuit reversed the injunction order and dismissed the lawsuit, based on the concern that it constituted federal interference in a state case.

O'Keefe filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court on January 21, 2015. On April 27, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court "took no action" on whether to hear the lawsuit. According to attorney Andrew Grossman, "Nearly all cert petitions (petitions for review) get denied at their first conference. A hold indicates that a petition has the court's interest. It doesn't guarantee a grant, but it is a very positive sign for the petitioner." The Supreme Court declined to accept the lawsuit on May 18, 2015.

Eric O'Keefe et al v. Government Accountability Board et al

On May 28, 2014, O'Keefe filed suit in state court against the Government Accountability Board and its director, Kevin Kennedy, for its involvement in the investigations. The lawsuit alleged the GAB had no statutory authority to participate in a criminal investigation.

The GAB fought to keep the documents related to the suit from the public eye, but Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Lee Dreyfus ordered portions to be unsealed in December 2014. The documents showed that GAB staff continued to investigate conservative groups even after the board voted to shut down the investigation.

Dreyfus set a tentative trial date in September 2015.

Publications

O'Keefe wrote a book, Who Rules America: The People versus the Political Class, which focuses on the country’s founding principles to make the case for term limits, and won praise from Milton Friedman. With Aaron Steelman, he co-authored "The End of Representation: How Congress Stifles Electoral Competition."

External links

• The Sam Adams Project, profile on the New York Times Caucus blog.
• "Who Rules America: The People versus the Political Class" book listing on Amazon
• Independent Groups' Ads Increasingly Steer Campaigns, CNN, May 2, 1998
• History of the Political Parties, YouTube
• Appearance at an Americans for Prosperity meeting
• The Sam Adams Project, the New York Times, July 19, 2008
• O'Keefe radio interview with Tertium Quids
• A Blank Paper on The History of Political Parties