Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s conservative majority has decided not to reappoint the leader of a commission working to discipline Justice David Prosser.

Wisconsin Judicial Commission Chairman John Dawson’s term ends Aug. 1. Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley and Justice Patrick Crooks [Editor's Note: Abrahamson, Bradley and Crooks make up the dissenting bloc on the conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court] sent Dawson a letter Friday saying the court had decided it didn’t want him back.

The decision was made in a closed vote. The three justices didn’t reveal the tally, but it takes four votes to make a decision and all three of them said they supported Dawson. That means the four-justice conservative majority, which includes Prosser, did not.

Currently, the only pending ethics charge against a member of the state’s highest court is the charge against Prosser. Ziegler received a public reprimand for her ethical lapse and the charges against Gableman were eventually dropped after the remaining justices split 3-3 along party lines on whether Gableman committed misconduct.

The case against Prosser may get shut down before it even begins, however, thanks to a quirk in Wisconsin state law. Normally, when the judicial commission brings an ethics charge of this kind, a three judge panel is appointed to determine whether that charge has merits. As a technical matter, however, that panel must be approved by the state supreme court itself. Prosser is now trying to prevent such approval from even being given by asking his colleagues to recuse themselves from the case — something one of his fellow conservatives has already agreed to do. If two or more of his remaining colleagues follow along, that will mean that the court lacks a quorum to approve a panel, and the case against Prosser will be blocked by this technicality.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)

On March 19, Rubio and the FEC agreed to a negotiated settlement in which his Senate campaign committee agreed to pay an $8,000 fine to settle charges that it accepted over $210,000 in “prohibited, excessive and other impermissible contributions.” This news was not made public until a POLITICO story this weekend. Perhaps most disturbing is that even after an internal campaign audit, the Marco Rubio for Senate committee failed to address more than $83,000 in improper or misreported donations.

Rubio, who has been frequently mentioned as a possible vice presidential pick for Mitt Romney, has been in several previous ethical controversies, including:

Use of a Florida GOP credit card for personal purposes, many of which were reportedly only reimbursed by Rubio after media inquiries. Rubio’s 2010 campaign dismissed these allegations, saying they were reimbursed at the time.

Double-billing of Florida taxpayers for plane travel also billed to the state Republican Party. Rubio’s 2010 campaign claimed these happened without Rubio’s knowledge and were reimbursed.

Failure to disclose a $135,000 home equity loan from a bank controlled by political supporters. Rubio, in 2008, said his failure to disclose the loan was “an oversight” and that there was “nothing unusual about the loan or the application.”

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington included Rubio among its “Crooked Candidates” of 2010. And Romney’s own press secretary Andrea Saul, then a staffer for a rival candidate, blasted Rubio in 2010 as “another typical politician who uses his public office for personal gain and only comes clean once caught.”

Rubio’s office has not yet responded to a ThinkProgress request for comment, nor, according to POLITICO, to their request.

Rep. David Rivera (R-FL)

The report says:

Analysis of documents obtained to date supports the contention that Mr. Rivera purposely falsified his financial disclosure forms in an attempt to legitimize other source of income beyond his salary as a State Legislator. First, Mr. Rivera provided information on his initial financial disclosure submissions that wasfalse and then amended the forms to remove the information. Second, Mr. Rivera amended his financial disclosure forms claiming that $132,000 received from Millennium Marketing were liabilities (loans), when, in fact, documentary evidence indicates that it was compensation for being employed as a consultant to the Flagler Dog Track for the gaming referendum.

The Miami Herald reported yesterday that state prosecutors will not charge Rivera, as the statute of limitations has expired. IRS and FBI investigations into Rivera’s alleged tax evasion and failure to disclose $132,000 in “loans” from a company co-owned by his mother are reportedly ongoing. Rivera has denied the allegations and his campaign said in statements that Rivera “at all times acted in compliance with both the letter and spirit of Florida and federal campaign finance laws and has timely and properly reported all personal income” and that the investigation was an “unprofessional waste of taxpayer dollars.”

In 2010, now-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) promised that if his party won the majority in the midterm elections, he (as majority leader) ‘institute a zero-tolerance policy‘ on ethics violations. In light of these serious charges, the Republican leadership could show its commitment to this policy by beginning an Ethics Committee investigation, stripping him of his committee assignments, calling for his resignation or even moving to remove him from Congress. It has done none of these things. Even with these apparent ethical breaches, they continue to let Rivera serve on the House Foreign Affairs Committee (and, ironically, its Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee) and the Committee on Natural Resources.

This is yet another in a growing series of examples of just how little Cantor’s promised “zero tolerance” policy for ethical scandals really means.

Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL)

Buchanan is reportedly already under a separate ethics investigation for alleged incomplete financial disclosure. The committee did not identify the nature of the new inquiry, though it did say it will announce its course of action on the matter, on or before May 9. An aide to the Florida Republican said the Congressman was confident the committee would clear him of any wrongdoing. Buchanan is also reportedly facing a federal grand jury investigation.

Despite House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) stated “zero-tolerance” policy on ethics, Buchanan continues to serve as finance vice chair for the National Republican Congressional Committee (the House GOP’s campaign arm). In fact, Buchanan was already one of more than 10 Republican Congressmen embroiled in ethics scandals.

Amusingly, Buchanan’s Congressional website includes stories calling for reform in light of a Bush administration ethics scandal at the Minerals Management Agency, and touts his work in support of a 2007 ethics and lobbying bill.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser

Under that proposal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court would review the panel’s findings and decide on Prosser’s fate. But yesterday, the embattled judge — who has explained the alleged assault as a “total reflex” reaction after Bradley “charged” him — suggested his own audacious proposal.

Prosser said all six of his supreme court colleagues should recuse themselves from the case, which would have the apparent effect of killing the proceedings.

“You have six justices who were present at the scene,” Prosser explained, “You have justices with actual bias who are eyewitnesses and, in effect, parties.” A former Republican Wisconsin house speaker, he also blasted the judicial commission for being “partisan.”

By Prosser’s logic, justices would be able to escape punishment by their colleagues for any indiscretion — as long as they committed it in the presence of the rest of the court.