OUTSIDE MILWAUKEE, WI -- GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Janesville, will not face prosecution for an Election Day event where he gave supporters and voters a sub sandwich and a soda from in Waukesha.
Waukesha County District Attorney Brad Schimel concluded a six-week investigation and released on Friday his decision to Melissa Bauldauff, the research director for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.
with the Government Accountability Board, the state agency that oversees elections in Wisconsin, and with the district attorney's office. Since the party alleged that a crime was committed, Waukesha County District Attorney's office, rather than the GAB, investigated the case.
shows Romney and Ryan handing out the sub sandwiches. Additionally, a video edited by the state Democratic Party shows Romney leading a rally and telling supporters to go vote, and, “If you want another sandwich, there are more back there.”
State law prohibits offering something valued at more than $1 in exchange for a vote.
However, in his decision, Schimel disagreed that it was election bribery:
“There is nothing unusual about a candidate telling people to vote on Election Day. It is common knowledge that on Election Day candidates stop in at local diners, senior centers and other places the public gathers to remind people to vote. That is what candidates do on Election Day.
“In his interactions with people in the sandwich line and during his speech, Governor Romney acknowledges the fact that it is likely that many present have already voted. The candidate knows he is talking to a group that is politically involved, and are likely voters. The encouragement to tell a friend can not be characterized as offensive to the law.
“In his speech, Governor Romney indicates that there were more sandwiches available. The organizers paid for 100 sandwiches, but as they noted, less than 100 people attended the event. Event organizers concede that it is possible that an uninvited member of the public managed to obtain a free sandwich. However, the fact that there appeared to be plenty of sandwiches left over reflects that it is unlikely that any significant number of uninvited members of the public helped themselves to free lunch. Even if they had, the evidence demonstrates that the intention of the organizers was only to provide lunch to invited volunteers and supporters. Thus, no one who was not otherwise inclined to vote was intentionally offered any inducement to do so.”
There's no denying that Bain sucked the life out of vulnerable companies and screwed over the little guys to give the big guys nice rewards. Romney's tax policies do basically the same thing -- cut entitlements to pay for further tax reductions for the lucky few.
And yes, it is still Bush's fault. He took us into the hole that we're still climbing out of. At least we're climbing.
Read the opinion letter. The un-refuted findings of fact indicated that this was an invitation only party for campaign workers and supporters. The intent was to reward the invitees for their dedication and hard work put in on the Romney primary campaign. There was no evidence presented that the sandwiches were distributed as an enticement to vote. Dems claimed that they had both video evidence and a witness that would prove otherwise, but failed to deliver both, despite their promises to do so. Compare to an election night campaign party. Clearly those in attendance most likely voted and did so for the candidate who's party they are attending. Often, drinks and snacks are served at these parties. Yet, the GAB, nor any DA's office has ever come out and said that these return parties are contrary to WI election law, have they? Contrast this with Smokes for Votes, wherein a person was enticed with a few cigarettes, told to go and vote, and only after having voted would they then receive the entire pack of cigs. Same with Cigs for Sigs, wherein a person was told that if they signed a recall petition, they would receive some cigs, but only after they signed. Clearly, the Smokes/Cigs were being given, and the intent behind the giving, was to entice the person into voting/signing.
This has nothing to do with partisanship, only a common sense analysis of the factual situations presented.
Honest...... I'm telling the truth here! (please don't let my wife know. PLEASE!)
People just need to make sure there is no BBQ sauce on their chin, or stain on their shirt or blouse when they walk into the polls. Kinda like the ink stained Iraqi citizen finger.
Read the opinion letter. While the Cousin's wasn't closed to the general public, it was being used for the private invitation only party at the time the video online was filmed. An invitation that was previously emailed to specific and select campaign workers and supporters verifies this fact. Originally, Cousin's was going to cater a party at Romney campaign HQ's, but the party was relocated to the restaurant after more people RSVP'd than originally expected and Cousin's offered the use of their dining room. While the DA admits that a member of the general public could have snuck into the private party line and been given a free sub and soft-drink, this was never intended by the campaign or Romney/Ryan and was more so a failing of Cousin's to properly segregate the private party from the general public. There were also 100 sandwiches that were ordered, paid for, and prepared for the event by the Romney campaign. Over 20 sandwiches were remaining, left in Cousin's possession, after the party had ended. The DA concluded that not only was this consistent with the stated intent but also indicative of the fact that not many, if any at all of the general public managed to infiltrate the line and get a free sub.
I honestly hope that you can see the factual differences between these cases.
Jon Huntsman. There was a man and a candidate I could respect.
Funny how you hold Romney accountable for the misgivings of youth/past now that he's a mature adult, but are completely silent about how Obama, in his own book, admitted to getting stoned out on pot, coke, crack, and heroin and drunk on alcohol, and treating those around him horribly. Once again, another Bren double standard all in the name of good old fashion partisan politics!
@GovWalker busing in OUT-of STATE helpers http://redalertpolitics.com/2012/05/28/will-waukesha-come-through-for-scott-walker-again-in-next-weeks-recall-election/ #wiunion # wirecall
Ray Lawson @Lawsonbulk Republican NLRB Member resign in Ethics Controversy. http://bit.ly/JwYDCP By: David Dayen Monday May 28, 2012 7:44 am TweetTweet digg stumbleupon Terence Flynn, a Republican member of the National Labor Relations Board, who leaked documents to Republican confidants according to that agency’s inspector general, resigned on Sunday. Flynn’s resignation becomes effective July 24. Flynn had only been on the board since January, as a recess appointment of the President, along with two Democrats, giving the board a full complement of five members. In March and May, NLRB IG David Berry issued reports showing that Flynn leaked early drafts of board rulings and internal documents to former NLRB Chairman Peter Schaumber, who happens to be a labor advisory committee aide to presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney, along with another former board member, now a counsel for the National Association of Manufacturers. This occurred when Flynn was a staff lawyer for board member Brian Hayes in 2010 and 2011. Flynn repeatedly denied involvement, and his resignation letter makes no mention of the controversy. However, aside from the fact that his lawyer made a statement, the contents of the statement lead in that direction:.....