Justice Butler's Zero Cost Housing
Compliments of Friebert, Finerty and St. John
 A recent review of Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler's campaign finance records shows a disturbing conflict of interest involving Butler and the silk stocking law firm of Friebert, Finerty and St. John. According to Elections Board records, Butler may have accepted illegal corporate campaign help, failed to report the aid he received, then actually heard cases on the Supreme Court that involved the very law firm that ran his campaign.
Beginning in 1999, Louis Butler listed the law firm's address at 330 East Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 1250, Milwaukee as his campaign headquarters. One of the firm's partners, John Finerty, has been listed as Butler's treasurer, and he has been a major contributor to Butler's campaigns for many years. The Friebert law firm was listed as the official Butler campaign headquarters on 17 of Butler's campaign finance reports over a period of eight years, yet Butler never once listed the services provided him by the law firm as contributions to his campaign. However, according to Elections Board records, it appears the firm received and processed campaign contributions, and sent official campaign correspondence to the Elections Board on the firm's letterhead in order to demonstrate that their services were not being provided by any one individual on a volunteer basis. If as it appears, the firm itself was acting on behalf of Butler without compensation, they provided an illegal corporate contribution. According to Wis. Stat. 11.38 (1)(a)1, which prohibits corporate contributions: "No foreign or domestic corporation, or association organized under ch. 185 or 193, may make any contribution or disbursement, directly or indirectly, either independently or through any political party, committee, group, candidate or individual for any purpose other than to promote or defeat a referendum." Butler could have either listed these services as "in-kind" donations, or paid money from his campaign to the law firm for their services, but records show no payments from Butler's campaign for the use of phones, secretarial staff, or mail services - despite Butler's campaign letterhead featuring this address. It must be nice to get free legal services since most firms will bill you for the time you take disputing their outrageous and incomprehensible invoices. Unfortunately for Butler's campaign, it was nice and likely illegal. Only last month did Butler's campaign list a single campaign expenditure of $1,000 to Friebert, Finerty & St. John. The purpose of the expenditure is simply listed as "fees." Did Butler, a former Public Defender, finally realize that legal services actually cost money, or was Butler paying a nominal retainer to the firm so they'd be available to write threatening letters when televisions stations aired ads he didn't like? Since Butler's appointment to the Supreme Court in 2004, Friebert, Finnerty and St. John attorneys have represented parties in at least 35 cases before the court, including two cases represented by Butler campaign treasurer, John Finerty. Thus, the cycle is complete. The Friebert law firm was so cozy with Butler that they were willing to provide him with potentially illegal campaign help while arguing cases before him. Of course, if Butler's challenger, Judge Michael Gableman, had allowed a silk stocking law firm to run his campaign for eight years, then heard cases involving that firm, the press would have an aneurysm. The ink wells of the state would run dry with the negative press and cries of corruption that would ensue. |
Thanks for your support of Wisconsin Club for Growth!
