Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser is currently the target of a ethics probe into an incident where he allegedly grabbed a fellow justice by the neck during an argument in her chambers. Yet, despite the seriousness of these allegations, Prosser and his conservative allies on the court have bent over backwards to prevent this probe from moving forward. Prosser convinced his three fellow conservatives on the court to recuse themselves from the probe, a move that effectively prevents any meaningful action against Prosser. And they removed an ethics official last May who supported the probe into Prosser.

This official’s replacement has now been announced, and he appears hand chosen to ensure that Prosser does not have to worry about any inconvenient probes into his ethical fitness for the job:

State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser and three other justices have appointed a retired attorney to the Wisconsin Judicial Commission who has said the ethics case against Prosser is unfair.

The court voted 4-3 to appoint Frank J. Daily to the commission last month, at a time when the case against Prosser faces major hurdles.

In a May letter to the editor printed in the Journal Sentinel, Daily said the proceeding against Prosser was “unfairly directed” at him and suggested it should be ended. His letter also took issue with Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, who has often clashed with Prosser; Daily called the chief justice “vindictive” and said she was responsible for the decline of the court’s reputation.

Wisconsin’s conservative justices have a history of protecting their own against ethics complaints. A complaint against conservative Justice Michael Gabelman for running a misleading campaign ad was shut down after the court split on party lines in Gabelman’s favor.

Despite significant right-wing hype, a new report by the conservative Government Accountability Institute (GAI) on the potential for foreign nationals to illegally contribute to U.S. political campaigns does not actually find any evidence of foreign nationals successfully donating to the Obama campaign. Still, a wide array of conservative and mainstream publications have incorrectly reported that the report documents foreign donors giving to the President’s re-election.

The GAI (not to be confused with the Government Accountability Office) details in its report America the Vulnerable: Are Foreign and Fraudulent Online Campaign Contributions Influencing U.S. Elections? that because candidates now raise money on the Internet and the Internet allows foreigners to access U.S. websites, it is easier than ever for non-Americans in foreign countries to donate to political candidates. The Daily Beast published a shorter version of the report, titled “The Illegal-Donor Loophole“. The authors note that a wide variety of candidates — Democrats and Republicans — face this concern.

The report notes:

Using a collection of online research tools, the Government Accountability Institute analyzed a portion of the foreign links that lead to the Obama campaign website, my.barackobama.com. The Institute found a wide variety of instances in which apparent foreign nationals either received solicitation emails or posted links to my.barackobama.com.

GAI then notes nine examples of foreign bloggers and bloggers in foreign countries — who may or may not be U.S. citizens — who have posted email solicitations or links to a “donate to Obama” page on their blogs. Only one, a Norwegian blogger named Gaupefot, claims to have actually donated to Obama. The blogger’s unverified claim, written in Norwegian, also appears to claim that the CIA funds the Norwegian Labour Party.

The GAI also notes that people from other countries often visit campaign websites and that an array of cyber-squatters have purchased domains that sound like political websites and link them often to legitimate campaign websites. These are even more often visited by users outside of the United States. It also claims that because Obama’s campaign site — and 211 Members of Congress — use a verification system for credit card contributions that does not include asking for a three-digit security code (Card Verification Value), these sites are potentially at greater risk for fraud.
Read more

DENVER, Colorado — During a panel on voter ID laws, the Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky declared at the Colorado Conservative Political Action Conference that voters who are facing disenfranchisement should really be thankful for new, discriminatory voter ID laws being introduced by conservatives across the country:

VON SPAKOVSKY: Getting the very few people who don’t have an ID an ID is very easy. And in fact, we should be happy that people have to get an id like that. Why? Because you cannot function in today’s society without an id. And anyone who doesn’t have one, we’re doing them a favor. We are helping them to get identification they will then need to do all kinds of things. Like if they want to apply for public systems or welfare, you need an ID. You want to do all kinds of other things, you need an ID.

Watch it:

Von Spakovsky’s condescending and offensive remarks about people on welfare aside, his comments on the number of people without government-issued identification are false. The non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice at New York University has published an exhaustive study which shows that 11 percent of all eligible voters nationally don’t have a government-issued photo id. That figure climbs dramatically for college students, seniors, minorities and low-income voters.

Von Spakovsky has a long history of voter suppression dating back to his time as a George W. Bush appointee to the Federal Election Commission, where, according to the Washington Post, he used “every opportunity he had over four years in the Justice Department to make it difficult for voters — poor, minority and Democratic — to go to the polls.”

Now from his perch at the far-right Heritage Foundation, he and fellow conservatives have spent the last few years promoting new voter ID laws in states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in an attempt to solve the country’s non-existent voter fraud problem. Since 2000, there has been about one case of voter impersonation per every 15 million votes cast, according to a report from ProPublica. That’s compared to an estimated 21 million eligible voters who don’t have a state-issued ID.

Days before the National Rifle Association endorsed the Republican presidential ticket, Paul Ryan echoed the gun lobby’s speculation of what an unleashed President Obama would do on gun control in a second term.

NRA Chief Wayne LaPierre has argued Obama never pushed for new gun regulation as “part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions.” Ryan came to a similar conclusion that Obama would take away gun rights despite the fact that he “hasn’t done much” on this issue in his first term. Ryan told Outdoor Life:

RYAN: What I worry about as a hunter, as a person who believes in the Second Amendment, as a gun owner, is knowing that President Obama – in his earlier career, prior to his presidency – was an advocate for gun control.

I worry about what his attitude will be once he never has to face voters again. And that to me is a concern just as a gun owner, that this is somebody who has a history of being hostile to the Second Amendment. He hasn’t, for political reasons I believe, done much to go after the Second Amendment, but his history, his party, lead me to be concerned about what he would be like in a second term.

It is true Obama has done little on gun regulation as president, except to weaken gun regulation by allowing loaded guns in national parks. His strongest comments in the wake of recent shootings argued common sense gun policy, such as, “AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals.”

Yet if Ryan is worried that Obama’s past positions on gun regulation indicates a willingness to ban guns, he should look much closer to home. Mitt Romney signed a permanent ban on assault rifles when he was governor of Massachusetts.

An Ohio prison owned by Corrections Corporation of America, one of the largest private prison companies in the US, has failed to meet state standards in food quality, sanitation, hygiene, and many other areas, according to a recently concluded audit. In total, the CCA prison had 47 violations.

CityBeat details the abysmal conditions at the Ohio facility, the first privately owned state prison in the country:

The local fire plan had no specific steps to release inmates from locked areas in case of emergency, and local employees said “they had no idea what they should do” in case of a fire emergency.

The audit also found all housing units provided less than the required 25 square feet on unencumbered space per occupant. It found single watch cells held two prisoners with some sleeping on the floor, and some triple-bunked cells had a third inmate sleeping on a mattress on the floor.

Inmates claimed laundry and cell cleaning services were not provided and CCA could not prove otherwise, recreation time was not always allowed five times a week in segregation as required, food quality and sanitization was not up to standards, infirmary patients were “not seen timely,” patients’ doctor appointments were often delayed with follow-ups rarely occurring, the facility had no written confined space program, the health care administrator could not explain or show an overall plan and nursing competency evaluations were not completed before the audit was conducted. Many more issues were found as well.

Despite the many abuses discovered at private prisons all over the country, CCA and other industry giants have greatly benefited from cash-strapped states’ attempts to save money. However, recent studies show that private prisons actually cost more than state-owned ones. Undeterred, CCA has started offering states millions to buy state facilities like the Ohio prison. Ohio sold the prison to CCA last year to help balance the state’s 2012-2013 budget, and CCA recently offered to buy another one in exchange for the state’s guarantee of 90% occupancy for 20 or 30 years.

Last week, a Pennsylvania court mostly suspended that state’s voter ID law for the upcoming election. Under the court’s order, voters will still be asked for ID at the polls, but they will still be able to cast a regular ballot — not a provisional ballot — if they are unable to show it.

Yet, despite this court order, at least five Pennsylvania county websites still falsely inform voters that they need to show ID in order to cast a regular ballot:

• Butler County: Butler County’s website still tells voters that “[s]tarting with the November 2012 general election, Pennsylvania requires voters to show an acceptable photo identification to vote at the polls.”
• Bucks County: Bucks County’s website falsely claims that “[i]f you do not have a photo ID or are indigent and unable to obtain one without payment of a fee, you may cast a provisional ballot, and will have six days to provide your photo ID and/or an affirmation to your county elections office to have your ballot count.”
• Perry County: Perry County echoes Bucks County’s false statement that voters without IDs will only be able to cast provisional ballots.
• Luzerne County: Luzerne County’s website is similarly incorrect, also falsely claiming that “ALL voters will be required to show a photo ID before voting at a polling place.”
• Delaware County: Delaware County’s website falsely claims that “Pennsylvania law now requires voters to show approved photo ID to vote at the polls.”

In addition to these five county websites, at least one state university — West Chester University — falsely informs its students that they “MUST present one of the following forms of PHOTO ID when [they] go to their poll place to vote in the General Election this November 6, 2012.”

To be fair, it is likely that these websites remain live simply because county or university officials have not yet updated their sites after the court’s decision last week. Nevertheless, they are a possible sign that elections officials may not fully understand that the requirement that voters present ID at the polls before they can cast a regular ballot is not in effect in November. Last month, elections officials in New Hampshire falsely told some primary voters that ID was required, even though the law did not yet require ID to be shown. The websites listed above indicate a similar error is taking place in Pennsylvania, potentially discouraging many voters from casting a ballot they are lawfully entitled to cast.