Wisconsin’s political scene is heating up as Republican state lawmakers accuse Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul of bypassing state law to employ attorneys funded by private foundations. This controversy has sparked debates over legal processes and political influences within the state’s Department of Justice (DOJ).
Republicans claim that these attorney arrangements, which involve private funding, breach legal regulations and open the DOJ to external partisan influences. On the other hand, Kaul and his Democratic supporters dismiss these accusations as a mere “partisan stunt” amid an election year.
Committee Report Stirs Controversy
The Special Committee on Oversight of the Department of Justice, formed shortly after Kaul announced his re-election bid, has released a report scrutinizing these attorney agreements. The committee, dominated by Republicans, voted 4-2 along party lines to approve the report, which criticizes the DOJ’s use of special assistant attorneys general paid by third parties.
Wisconsin’s Senate majority leader initiated the special committee just months after Kaul declared his candidacy for another term as attorney general. Eric Toney, a Republican and current district attorney, is also in the race for this position.
Legal Fellows and Financial Backing
Central to the dispute are legal fellows whose roles were supported by organizations like the Public Rights Project and the State Energy and Environmental Impact Center. These entities focus on various advocacy issues, including environmental laws, with funding from notable figures such as Michael Bloomberg.
In 2019, a fellowship agreement facilitated by the Public Rights Project focused on reproductive and workers’ rights. Later, two fellows were engaged during Kaul’s second term, concentrating on environmental law enforcement with financial backing from Bloomberg’s funded center.
Democratic Response and Legal Ramifications
Kaul defends the legality of these arrangements, asserting that the DOJ consulted the Wisconsin Ethics Commission before proceeding with the fellowships. He argued that the committee’s findings lack substance, describing them as politically motivated actions rather than genuine oversight.
Despite the recommendations for terminating these agreements, Kaul confirmed that the DOJ currently does not employ any fellows, a point he reiterated during committee testimony earlier this year.
Legal challenges have emerged, with farming groups suing the DOJ over the employment of an environmental prosecutor funded externally. This lawsuit questions the legality of such an arrangement and its alignment with state constitutional principles regarding separation of powers.
Legislative and Political Implications
Republican lawmakers argue that Kaul should have sought legislative approval for these positions through the budget process. The committee’s recommendations aim to strengthen oversight and clarify the legal classification of such attorney roles under state law.
Efforts to legislate restrictions on external legal hiring were made last year, but a Republican-backed bill failed to progress in the GOP-majority Legislature. Democrats view this as indicative of Republican reluctance to genuinely address the issue.
Sen. Melissa Ratcliff, D-Cottage Grove, expressed skepticism, suggesting that the committee’s oversight role is ineffective.
