Unless I have the law wrong, he skirted the law. He didn’t pay anyone to vote (although he originally said he was), he technically only paid them to sign a petition. The law afaik only says you can’t pay people to vote (regardless of who, in Wisconsin you straight up cannot pay people to vote at all), you can pay them to sign a petition.
However I would argue that by first announcing that the money would go only to people who voted and then subtly changing it later is still totally a form of bribery. People absolutely voted for a chance at that money because of his original statement and didn’t know it changed. But I’m going to go out on a limb here and say he’ll be 100% fine because of technicalities (aka he’s rich as shit and is completely untouchable)
You’re making a legal claim, and that claim that should be examined closely in court to establish its veracity. For example, I disagree with your analysis. I think that everyone understands what’s actually being offered: money for a vote. I think that a jury could convict, and that there is probable cause to arrest and charge right now.
And the reasoning is quite simple, right? You want to give money for the vote but you know that would be illegal so instead you say something that’s almost the same as the vote and then wink a few times. Everyone has communicated clearly. Everyone knows exactly what they’re supposed to do, and why. Just because you wrote down some words cleverly on paper doesn’t change the causes or effects.
But that’s my opinion, and I’m not a judge in that state. Neither are you. Neither are any of us here in the comment section. That’s why it ought to go before a judge in that state.
Well you can read it here, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s four liberal and three conservative justices unanimously declined to hear the case, without elaborating further.
it should be illegal. that’s bribery
It’s already illegal. Unless the rich do it, of course.
Unless I have the law wrong, he skirted the law. He didn’t pay anyone to vote (although he originally said he was), he technically only paid them to sign a petition. The law afaik only says you can’t pay people to vote (regardless of who, in Wisconsin you straight up cannot pay people to vote at all), you can pay them to sign a petition.
However I would argue that by first announcing that the money would go only to people who voted and then subtly changing it later is still totally a form of bribery. People absolutely voted for a chance at that money because of his original statement and didn’t know it changed. But I’m going to go out on a limb here and say he’ll be 100% fine because of technicalities (aka he’s rich as shit and is completely untouchable)
You’re making a legal claim, and that claim that should be examined closely in court to establish its veracity. For example, I disagree with your analysis. I think that everyone understands what’s actually being offered: money for a vote. I think that a jury could convict, and that there is probable cause to arrest and charge right now.
And the reasoning is quite simple, right? You want to give money for the vote but you know that would be illegal so instead you say something that’s almost the same as the vote and then wink a few times. Everyone has communicated clearly. Everyone knows exactly what they’re supposed to do, and why. Just because you wrote down some words cleverly on paper doesn’t change the causes or effects.
But that’s my opinion, and I’m not a judge in that state. Neither are you. Neither are any of us here in the comment section. That’s why it ought to go before a judge in that state.
Well you can read it here, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s four liberal and three conservative justices unanimously declined to hear the case, without elaborating further.
He paid people to vote, that’s just very clearly what he did.
Pisses me off they get no accountability. when if you or I did it we would be locked up imminently.
We face legal justice. They face vigilante justice.
All we need is someone willing to pull the trigger and skilled enough to hit their target.
And willing to die in prison or be executed. That makes the numbers much smaller.
Yet not zero.
Or live long enough for a pardon.