Conservatives Are Sacrificing Scott Walker for a Higher Cause
They want to eradicate fundraising restrictions—even if it costs the governor his job

Walker’s contention that the case is now dead is flat wrong; the investigation targeting him is still under appeal. But the overlooked story here is the role of conservatives in the public chastisement of a rising star in the GOP firmament. The same activists who spent millions to help Walker survive a 2012 recall election strongly supported the release of the Doe documents—which have made the governor’s 2014 reelection less likely, to say nothing of his entering the 2016 Republican presidential primary—because their goals are even bigger than getting Walker elected president.

Sure, the governor is an important figure to these conservatives, but he is small potatoes compared to the legal feast they’ve long savored: overturning the restrictions on so-called “dark money” raised by their independent political advocacy groups. These conservatives are using the investigation against Walker to launch a frontal assault against laws barring electoral candidates from coordinating with third-party advocacy groups (as Walker is accused of doing). They hope to appeal the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has been receptive to challenges of campaign-finance restrictions.

Their key strategist is Eric O’Keefe, a smart, wealthy, tactically sophisticated political activist and longtime associate of the Koch brothers. Their connections go back to at least 1979, when David Koch ran for vice president on the Libertarian ticket and O’Keefe worked full-time on the Libertarian presidential campaign, rising to national field coordinator and, in 1980, to national director of the party.

...

O’Keefe's goal was made clear by the second Journal editorial: "The stakes in the federal lawsuit ... are bigger than Mr. Walker's campaign. They concern the prosecutorial machine that exists in Wisconsin, and in too many other states, to punish and limit political speech that is protected by the First Amendment.” In summoning this image of Big Brother–like prosecutors mowing down our right to free speech, the paper was simply seconding the claims of O’Keefe and his lawyers, that groups like Wisconsin Club for Growth, as long as they don’t expressly advocate how people should vote, can coordinate with campaigns of political candidates. This would completely change how the law has treated these groups for decades, yet federal district court judge Rudolph Randa accepted the argument. O’Keefe and the Club for Growth “have found a way to circumvent campaign finance laws,” Randa wrote approvingly, “and that circumvention should not and cannot be condemned or restricted. Instead, it should be recognized as promoting political speech.”