Probable Cause as to Count 5-6: ( Extortion of Wisconsin Wholesale Beer Distributors Association) Your complaining witness was present when an adult citizen, Thomas Sheforgen, appeared in John Doe proceedings before the Honorable Sarah O'Brien, Circuit Court Judge for Dane County. Mr. Sheforgen stated that from 1980 until December 11, 2001 he had worked as the President of the Wisconsin Wholesale Beer Distributors Association. As President of the Wisconsin Wholesale Beer Distributors Association, one of his responsibilities was lobbying along with government relations and a number of other duties. Mr. Sheforgen stated that working as a lobbyist for the association, he came to know the defendant and had met with him on a number of occasions. Mr. Sheforgen indicated that during the last several years the biggest piece of legislation that he had worked on was referred to as the "Tied House" Laws. Tied House laws govern the relationship that wholesalers and brewers have with retailers. Mr. Sheforgen met with the defendant from time to time to discuss issues related to the Tied House provisions. At other times he had met with the defendant at the defendant 's request for the purposes of discussing campaign contributions that the defendant wished to be made by the association. Mr. Sheforgen stated that he and the defendant got along fine until approximately July of 2000. In July of 2000, he received a telephone call at his office in Madison from the defendant. The defendant was very angry and asked Mr. Sheforgen, "What the hell are you guys doing?" Mr. Sheforgen did not know what the defendant was referring to and the defendant said, "Well, you guys are contributing to my opponent." The defendant continued, saying, "Don't you realize who I am?" Mr. Sheforgen indicated that he did not know what the defendant was talking about. The defendant told him that Don Carrig and George Colletti, both of whom Mr. Sheforgen knows to be members of the association, had made contributions to the defendant's opponent. The defendant continued to be very angry and stated that he was the Senate Majority Leader and questioned what kind of brains the association had to give money to his opponent. Mr. Sheforgen stated that this was not any official policy of the association or any official action of the association and that he assumed it happened because he believed Lisa Nelson who was the defendant's opponent had been Mr. Carrig's campaign manager when Mr. Carrig had previously run for congress in the district now represented by Tammy Baldwin. Mr. Sheforgen also informed the defendant that he knew that Mr. Carrig and Mr. Colletti were good friends. Mr. Sheforgen stated that he subsequently contacted Mr. Carrig and Mr. Colletti and confirmed that they had both given a contribution to Lisa Nelson because they did not like the defendant. Mr. Sheforgen stated that he called the defendant back and told him why the contributions had been made, confirming what Mr. Sheforgen had told the defendant earlier. The defendant was again angry and told Mr. Sheforgen that his people had made a big mistake and again reminded Mr. Sheforgen that he was the Majority Leader of the Wisconsin State Senate and told Mr. Sheforgen that his organization better at least come up with matching funds for the defendant's campaign to make up for the contributions to the defendant's opponent. Mr. Sheforgen stated that he perceived this as a threat because the defendant kept reminding him in an very angry fashion that the defendant was the Senate Majority Leader. Mr. Sheforgen knew that as the Majority Leader, the defendant had control over any legislation that was going to go through the Senate. If he was opposed to your legislation, you were not going to be successful. Mr. Sheforgen stated that numerous times during his career as a lobbyist while the defendant was Senate Majority Leader, he had spoken to other senators and had been told that if the defendant was opposed to legislation Sheforgen wanted, there was nothing that the other Senators could do about it. After Mr. Sheforgen spoke to the defendant a second time, he contacted Sharon Cook who was another lobbyist for the association. They decided that the organization should attempt to make additional contributions to Senator Chvala. Mr. Sheforgen believed that the organization did make additional contributions but did not match the amount of money that Mr. Carrig and Mr. Colletti had given to Lisa Nelson. Mr. Sheforgen and the defendant then had several telephone conversations centering around campaign contributions. During these conversations, the defendant would continually ask Mr. Sheforgen whether he had done anything yet to match the contribution given to Lisa Nelson. In a phone conversation that occurred at the end of September, Mr. Sheforgen informed the defendant that his board had declined to make a matching contribution. The defendant responded by stating that Mr. Sheforgen had better think about it again and call him back when he had a better answer. In November, shortly before the election, the defendant called Mr. Sheforgen and again asked what his organization was doing. Mr. Sheforgen responded that the board had said they would not do anything. The defendant responded by asking,"Is that all you're going to say?" Mr. Sheforgen told the defendant that that was all he had to tell him and the defendant then slammed down the telephone. Mr. Sheforgen stated that after the November 2000 election he saw the defendant in the Capitol and approached him and indicated that he would like to talk to him. The defendant responded by saying, "You had your chance" and walked away. Mr. Sheforgen stated that thereafter he attempted to make an appointment to see the defendant but was unable to receive an appointment. In February of 2001 he attended a fund-raiser for the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee at the Argus Bar in Madison. He approached the defendant along with Steve Johnson and Pierre McCormick, two of the officers in the Wholesale Beer Distributors Association. When he introduced his officers to the defendant, the defendant refused to acknowledge Mr. Sheforgen. When one of the officers indicated that they understood there was a problem and wanted to know what they could do about it, the defendant pointed at Mr. Sheforgen and said, "That's your problem. You have a huge mountain to climb and that's your main problem." Mr. Sheforgen stated that several months after this encounter with the defendant, he was approached by the officers of the association and given the choice of resigning or being fired. Mr. Sheforgen further stated that prior to this incident, in which he failed to secure funds to match the campaign contributions made to Lisa Nelson, he had never had any problems with the defendant and had met with him on numerous occasions. Your complaining witness states that reports maintained by the State Elections Board show that in the 2000 election Lisa Nelson was a Republican candidate for Senate against the defendant in the 16th Senate District. Those records further show that, on or about June 29, 2000, Ms. Nelson received a $1,000 campaign contribution from Don Carrig and, on or about June 24, 2000, Ms. Nelson received a $500 campaign contribution from George Colletti. Other Acts Evidence Relevant to Counts 1-6: Your complaining witness is aware of other incidents where the defendant threatened to block legislation unless campaign contributions were made by lobbyists and their clients. Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office Investigator Heidi Bisswurm spoke to adult citizen Dismas P. Becker. Mr. Becker informed Investigator Bisswurm that he is a former member of the clergy and former representative in the State Assembly. He indicated that he was the Assembly Majority Leader from 1985 until 1986. Mr. Becker stated that sometime after leaving the legislature he became a lobbyist and when he spoke to Ms. Bisswurm in 2002, he indicated that he was a registered lobbyist for the Golden Rule Insurance Company along with a number of other clients. Mr. Becker stated that he heavily lobbied issues on behalf of Golden Rule Insurance regarding HMO reform. He stated that the last time he had contact with the defendant was in 1996 because he has essentially been barred from the defendant's office. Mr. Becker stated that sometime in the summer of 1996 he received a telephone call from the defendant. Mr. Becker recalled that the defendant was very angry during the call based on the defendant's tone of voice and the way the he was acting. The defendant asked Mr. Becker what was going on and Mr. Becker asked the defendant what he meant. The defendant then stated that Mr. Becker's clients, Golden Rule Insurance had contributed money to the his opponent. In 1996 the defendant was up for reelection in the 16th Senate District and was opposed by Tom Metcalfe. Mr. Becker indicated that he had been unaware of any contribution made by Golden Rule Insurance to Mr. Metcalfe prior to the defendant's phone call. Mr. Becker stated that during the phone call, he told the defendant that his clients give to their friends first and then to people who at least open their door to them. He told the defendant that he did not fall into either of those categories. Mr. Becker further told the defendant that his clients did not give money to people who make public statements against them like the he had recently done. The defendant then stated, "Well, you tell them if they think they had a hard time during this biennium, wait and see what happens in the next biennium if they don't match that contribution." Mr. Becker stated that he believed the statement by the defendant meant that the defendant was acknowledging that he had opposed legislation sought by Golden Rule Insurance during the last legislative session, and that legislation sought by Golden Rule Insurance would be opposed and the company treated even worse during the next legislative session if they did not give the defendant a campaign contribution. Mr. Becker believed that this opposition was not to be based on the merits of any such legislation, but rather on the refusal to make campaign contributions. Mr. Becker further informed Investigator Bisswurm that this telephone conversation was placed to him at his office, which was located in the City of Madison in Dane County. Investigator Bisswurm spoke to Brent Embrey who stated that in 1996 he was working in Wisconsin in the Government Relations Department for Golden Rule Insurance Company. He stated at the time the company had retained Dismas Becker as a contract lobbyist. Mr. Embrey could not recall any specifics about Mr. Becker telling him about a 1996 phone call but he did recall that he knew the defendant had become very angry about a campaign contribution that was made to his opponent by someone at Golden Rule Insurance. Mr. Embrey stated that after 1996, the company had to bring in another lobbyist in order to obtain access to the defendant. During this meeting, the defendant expressed to Mr. Embrey that Mr. Becker was not the best lobbyist for Golden Rule Insurance Company. Mr. Embrey stated he did not recall the defendant directly stating that Golden Rule Insurance should fire Mr. Becker, but it was clear that the defendant was angry with Mr. Becker. Your complaining witness has reviewed certified records maintained by the Wisconsin Elections Board and those Elections Board records show that in the September 1996 pre-primary filing for Tom Metcalfe, a contribution was listed from Patrick Carr of Golden Rule Insurance Company in the amount of $500.00. This contribution is listed as having been made on August 2, 1996. Your complaining witness states that based upon the fact that this contribution was not made until August 2, 1996, the defendant's conversation in which he threatened Mr. Becker could not have occurred until on or after August 2, 1996. Investigator Bisswurm spoke to Michael Bright who told her that he had worked in government and public affairs for 14 years and is currently a registered lobbyist. Mr. Bright stated that he has had numerous contacts with the defendant over the years. Bright stated that one of the defendant's classic lines was" I don't have a relationship with them," which Bright stated means that the person or group in question hasn't given the defendant money. Your complaining witness states that he has spoken to other lobbyists who also stated the defendant's use of the term " relationship" primarily means giving money. Mr. Bright told Investigator Bisswurm that he first learned what the defendant meant by speaking of a lack of a "relationship" in April or May of 1996. At that time, Mr. Bright represented Fair Liquidation of Waste (FLOW). Fair Liquidation of Waste was an association of Milwaukee suburban interests who desired that sewerage fees be based upon per capita sewerage use rather than upon property values. Legislation was necessary to achieve this goal. Mr. Bright met with the defendant to lobby on behalf of Fair Liquidation of Waste. During this meeting, the defendant stated words to the effect, "Your client may be right on the issues. In fact they are right on the issues. But it doesn't matter because they [FLOW] have all the "toys'" and that "unless they put $30,000 on the table" the defendant would not help FLOW legislatively. Mr. Bright was shocked by how blatant the defendant was in demanding money in exchange for legislation. Mr. Bright indicated that he had a similar experience with the defendant's chief of Staff, Mr. Burnett. Mr. Bright stated that he was retained by Midwest Express Airlines to attempt to change that law on how airplanes stored in the state of Wisconsin were taxed. During his lobbying efforts on the tax provision Mr. Bright met several times with the defendant. The provision had been supported by the Assembly, but was having trouble getting through the Senate. During these meetings, the defendant continually told Mr. Bright that he had no relationship with Midwest Express. Mr. Bright believed that what the defendant meant was that Midwest Express had not made campaign contributions to the defendant or other Democratic Senators. Mr. Bright said this conclusion was strengthened by a meeting that he had with Mr. Burnett to discuss the issue. Mr. Bright indicated that within the Capitol it is well known that the defendant works very closely with Mr. Burnett and talking to Mr. Burnett is the same as talking to the defendant. Mr. Burnett indicated that there was opposition to the bill from smaller airports and that was delaying the bill. Mr. Bright corrected him, pointing out that a compromise had been reached on that issue. Mr. Burnett then told him that Midwest Express needed to make a $10,000 contribution. Mr. Bright told Mr. Burnett that the airline couldn't do that and that the request was inappropriate. Mr. Burnett told Mr. Bright that he was not doing his job and would have to help Midwest Express understand that they had to be a part of the political process. Mr. Burnett then turned red and insisted that the demand was not a quid pro quo. Your complaining witness states that Mr. Burnett appeared before the John Doe and acknowledged making the request for a $10,000 campaign contribution during a discussion of the Midwest Express tax issue, but insisted that this was not a quid pro quo. Probable Cause as to Count 7: (HIRING WENDY KLOIBER) Your complaining witness states that he was present when an adult citizen, Wendy Kloiber, testified in a John Doe Proceeding before the Honorable Sarah O'Brien, and he was also present when follow-up interviews were conducted with Ms. Kloiber. Ms. Kloiber stated that she was hired by the Senate Democratic Caucus as a State employee in June of 1999. Ms. Kloiber stated that prior to being hired by the Senate Democratic Caucus she interviewed with Andy Gussert, who was the Director of the Senate Democratic Caucus, and with the defendant. Ms. Kloiber stated that she was told by both Mr. Gussert and by the defendant that she was being hired to run the reelection race of then State Senator Alice Clausing. Mr. Kloiber stated at the time that she was hired to run the Alice Clausing reelection campaign, she knew that she was being hired as a State employee but did not realize that it was illegal for her to work as a State employee and run Senator Clausing's campaign. Ms. Kloiber stated that when she spoke to Mr. Gussert and when she spoke to the defendant, there was some discussion of other duties that she would have but that it was made clear by both individuals that her number one job would be to run Senator Clausing's reelection campaign. Ms. Kloiber stated that one of the first things she was assigned to do when she was hired as a State employee was to set up a fund-raiser for Senator Clausing. Ms. Kloiber stated that this fund-raiser ended up not taking place because of the legislative calendar. Ms. Kloiber stated that prior to being hired at the Senate Democratic Caucus she did not know the defendant, but that during the interview process she met twice with Mr. Gussert and once with the defendant. During the interview with the defendant, Ms. Kloiber indicated that there was a direct discussion of the fact that Ms. Kloiber was being hired to help with Alice Clausing's campaign. Ms. Kloiber indicated that the defendant made a statement to the effect of that they were pleased to have found such a smart woman to work with another smart woman on her reelection. This was confirmed at a lunch meeting that took place with the defendant at a restaurant in downtown Madison two or three weeks after Ms. Kloiber was hired. Ms. Kloiber stated that during this conversation the defendant discussed with Ms. Kloiber how important Alice Clausing was and how important winning that race was. During this lunch meeting, Ms. Kloiber expressed concerns to the defendant that she had no experience running campaigns and needed training. The defendant told her that she should contact Mr. Burnett, who the defendant identified as his chief of staff, because Mr. Burnett knows more about running a campaign than anyone. Ms. Kloiber stated that she then began to work on the Alice Clausing reelection campaign as part of her duties as a State employee at the Senate Democratic Caucus. She said that some of these duties were legitimate constituent relation duties, but others, such as fund-raising and opposition research, she now understands to be purely political and improper for State employees. Your complaining witness states that during the course of this investigation Andrew Gussert spoke to Investigator Bisswurm and confirmed that during the time period in June of 1999 he was employed as the Director of the Senate Democratic Caucus. Mr. Gussert indicated that in that position he reported directly to the defendant. Mr. Gussert stated his office was located in the bank building at One South Pinckney and that he was aware that the office of the Senate Democratic Caucus was a State office and that all its employees were State employees. Mr. Gussert stated that Wendy Kloiber was hired as a State employee specifically to run Alice Clausing's reelection campaign because the defendant believed that a woman needed to run Alice Clausing's campaign. Mr. Gussert stated that eventually Wendy Kloiber ran into some conflict with other members of Alice Clausing's campaign staff and another SDC employee, Carrie Lynch, was assigned to run Senator Clausing's campaign. Mr. Gussert also identified a memo that he had sent to the defendant on or about April 27, 1999. The fax cover sheet for this memo stated, "I've included a resume for Wendy Kloiber for the open analyst position. I met with her yesterday and she would be a good hire. We spoke extensively about the political nature of the job. I'm ready to offer her $36,000. Do you want to meet with her?" Mr. Gussert further stated that all decisions regarding who was hired at the Senate Democratic Caucus were ultimately made by the defendant. Mr. Gussert in fact indicated that when he interviewed for the job, he asked for and was promised authority to make hiring decisions. However, Mr. Gussert worked until the end of 2000 and during that time period all hiring decisions were made by the defendant. Probable Cause as to Count 8: (OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT TO HEATHER COLBURN) Your complaining witness states that Investigator Bisswurm spoke to an adult citizen, Heather Colburn. Ms. Colburn stated that she currently works for Emily's List in Washington, D.C. She stated that during the summer of 1999 she was recruited to work for the Senate Democratic Caucus. She stated that she was an acquaintance of Andrew Gussert and knew him when she worked in Democratic politics in Wisconsin. Ms. Colburn stated that she had worked on Tammy Baldwin's 1998 Congressional campaign and that she was looking for another job and that while she was living out of state she had let a lot of people know she was interested in coming back to Wisconsin. She stated that Mr. Gussert contacted her and discussed a job opening with the Senate Democratic Caucus working as a fund-raiser. She stated that Mr. Gussert gave her some information about the job over the phone and via e-mail but she eventually came back to Madison meet with Mr. Gussert in person. Ms. Colburn stated that she believed that this meeting took place in September or October of 1999 but was not sure of the exact date. She stated that in her meeting with Mr. Gussert it was clearly laid out that she would be a full-time fund-raiser working at the Senate Democratic Caucus. She stated that she was taken around the SDC office and introduced to the people who worked there. She said that the only person she knew besides Mr. Gussert was Cindy Maracek because she had worked with Ms. Maracek in the past on graphics projects. Ms. Colburn stated that she interviewed with Mr. Gussert in person and then she interviewed with the defendant. She stated that the interview with the defendant took place at the defendant's law office in downtown Madison, Dane County and that she, Mr. Gussert and the defendant were the only people present at the meeting. Ms. Colburn stated she knew the defendant from her previous work in Madison but did not know him well. She stated that during this meeting it was clear that the defendant wanted to hire her as a full-time fund-raiser. The defendant explained to her how he approached fund-raising and told her how other Democratic candidates raise money. He also told her what her role as a fund-raiser would be and discussed her fund-raising background. Ms. Colburn stated it was clear during that she this conversation was being a offered a position as a full-time fund-raiser working for the Senate Democratic Caucus. She stated that no other entity was ever mentioned to her by the defendant and that there was no mention of working part-time for the Senate Democratic Caucus and part-time for the campaign committee. Ms. Colburn stated that the defendant specifically mentioned that she would be an SDC employee and she knew that as the Majority Leader, he was the head of the Senate Democratic Caucus and it would only make sense that she would interview with him for a job with the Senate Democratic Caucus. Ms. Colburn went on to state that she does not know anything about legislative policy or any other legitimate work at the Senate Democratic Caucus. Her entire background involved fund-raising and that was her career. It was clear to her that putting money into the bank would be her sole job with the SDC. She knew that it was a full-time position and she had discussions with Mr. Gussert regarding health benefits. Ms. Colburn stated that she remembered the interview with the defendant because she remembered thinking that the defendant had done his homework prior to interviewing her. The defendant hit on the points that she finds important such as electing women and having them hold leadership roles in the Democratic Party. In the interview the defendant discussed how he was helping women get elected and pitched the importance of women in the Democratic Party. She remembers thinking how he really tried to sell her on the job by focusing on her important issues. Ms. Colburn stated that she was ultimately offered the job by Mr. Gussert after her interview with the defendant. She stated she ultimately contacted Mr. Gussert and turned the job down. Your complaining witness states that Investigator Bisswurm spoke to Mr. Gussert and Mr. Gussert acknowledged that he and the defendant spoke of hiring a fund-raiser for the Senate Democratic Caucus and in fact interviewed Ms. Colburn for the job. Mr. Gussert stated that he knew Ms. Colburn worked for Emily's List in Washington, D.C. and had worked as a fund-raiser in Madison prior to that. He knew Ms. Colburn from her days in Madison and set up a meeting for her with the defendant in Madison to discuss the fund-raising job for the SDC. Mr. Gussert stated he was present for the interview between the defendant and Ms. Colburn which took place in the defendant's law office which is located at 44 East Mifflin Street in the City of Madison, County of Dane. At the interview, the defendant discussed that Ms. Colburn would be doing mainly doing fund-raising work, but the defendant did say that she may have to do some policy work. The defendant offered Ms. Colburn a job as a fund-raiser for the SDC. Mr. Gussert stated that Ms. Colburn ultimately turned down the job. Mr. Gussert also identified several e-mails, as well as a memo, that he had sent to the defendant and Mr. Burnett who is the defendant's chief of staff. This memo, which is misdated August 26, 01, contains an e-mail sent by Ms. Colburn to Mr. Gussert dated August 23, 1999. In the e-mail, Ms. Colburn indicates that she is looking to make around $35,000+ and states that experienced fund-raisers make about $3,000 to $5,000 per month so that's the low end and that her starting date is negotiable. Mr. Gussert added in the memo to the defendant that Ms. Colburn is scheduled to meet with the defendant on Friday, October 8. Mr. Gussert also reiterated that all hiring decisions at the Senate Democratic Caucus were made by the defendant. Probable Cause as to Count 9: (USE OF CAUCUS EMPLOYEES 1998 ELECTION) Your complaining witness states that during the course of his investigation he has reviewed a transcripts from John Doe appearances on October 31, 2001 and December 11, 2001 made by an adult citizen, Joanna Richard, as well as a follow-up interview report dated July 2, 2002 with Ms. Richard prepared by Investigator Bisswurm. Ms. Richard stated that from late November of 1995 until January 3, of 1999, she was employed by the Senate Democratic Caucus as the Director of the Caucus. Ms. Richard stated that the defendant was the individual who hired her to be the Director. Ms. Richard stated at the same time that she was hired by the defendant as the Director of the Senate Democratic Caucus she was also given the title of Executive Director of the State Senate Democratic Committee by the defendant. Ms. Richard stated that during the entire time period that she worked for the caucus, the caucus had offices in the City of Madison, Dane County but at three different locations due to renovations in and around the Capitol. Ms. Richard indicated that as the Director of the Caucus, she was a State employee. Ms. Richard stated that in her capacity as Director of the Caucus, she would have almost daily contact with the defendant. Ms. Richard stated that at the time she was hired as the Director of the caucus she believed there were 10 or 11 other employees at the caucus. These included a graphics person, some data people, some computer people and legislative analysts. Ms. Richard stated that during her time period as Director of the Caucus she was involved in hiring a number of individuals and that people who were hired understood that in addition to working for the State they would also be doing work for Democratic candidates. Specifically, Ms. Richard stated that the individuals who worked as analysts at the caucus had their workload divided up by committees and by "targets". Ms. Richard stated that the term "targets" or targeted races referred to State Senate races that the defendant determined would likely be highly contested. Ms. Richard explained that the defendant determined who would be targets for the Senate Democratic Caucus and that if a particular Senator was picked, the caucus would monitor press clippings and votes that the Senator had taken and if the Senator chaired a committee, they would monitor that committee. During this process particular attention would be paid to Republican Senators who the defendant deemed to be vulnerable. Ms. Richard stated that during the time period she worked as the director of the Caucus, the defendant was responsible for hiring decisions. She stated that she would make recommendations on who she wanted to hire and then she would have to argue with the defendant to convince the defendant that the person that she wanted was the right person to hire. Ultimately the defendant had the final decision making authority. During her tenure, the defendant also had the ultimate decision making authority on wage increases granted to staff members. Ms. Richard informed investigators that she was the Director of the Senate Democratic Caucus during both the 1996 and 1998 campaign seasons. She indicated that during the years when no elections were scheduled, employees of the Senate Democratic Caucus primarily did policy work but also performed some pure campaign work in their State offices on State time. She indicated that one such task was opposition research. Ms. Richard identified a research file maintained by the Senate Democratic Caucus, which contained information about divorce proceedings, involving a potential Republican candidate in the 1998 election against an incumbent Democratic senator. Ms. Richard acknowledged that this type of material would have been obtained and analyzed by State employees on state time. Ms. Richard further stated that as elections drew nearer, the amount of legitimate policy work being done by the caucus began to diminish and the amount of campaign work began to increase. She stated that the planning for election campaigns would start in the January of the election year and by the spring of the election year an SDC staffer would be assigned to run the campaign in each important State Senate district and a campaign plan would be established. From the spring of each election year through the summer, the majority of the Senate Democratic Caucus staff work and their first priority was campaign work. Ms. Richard stated that from September until the election in November, SDC staffers would be working almost exclusively on campaign and that very little policy work would be done during those months. Ms. Richard stated that during the 1996 campaign a chain of command existed in which the defendant would come to her to discuss campaigns and she would then provide the defendant's direction to individual Senate Democratic Caucus staffers who were running campaigns. However, in 1998, Ms. Richard stated there was a dramatic increase in the defendant's involvement in daily activities during the election cycle. She stated that the defendant would call her everyday several times on her State phone and would question every judgment that was made on campaigns. In addition, the defendant would have to approve all the campaign plans for the candidates. The Senate Democratic Caucus staff member, who was assigned to run the campaign, would run create a campaign plan and Ms. Richard stated she would edit it and come up with a final version. She would then give her finalized version to the defendant who would revise it and edit it before giving his final approval of the plan. Ms. Richard stated that when she discussed these campaign plans with the defendant, they did discuss which members of the Senate Democratic Caucus staff would be running the particular campaigns. Ms. Richard further stated that in addition to reviewing the campaign plans the defendant needed to approve campaign literature. Ms. Richard stated that the campaign literature was put together by the staff member, who was the graphics person at the Senate Democratic Caucus, and then it would either be faxed to the defendant or someone from his staff would pick it up at the Senate Democratic Caucus offices. Ms. Richard stated that in 1998 there were three State senate races that were targeted by the defendant: the 15th Senate District involving Judy Robson, the 27th Senate District involving Jon Erpenbach and the 9th Senate District involving Jim Baumgart. Ms. Richard stated that Lance Walter was the SDC employee who ran the Robson race and Julie Laundrie from the SDC ran the Erpenbach race. She stated there were three SDC employees who did work on the Baumgart race: Tara Vasby, Jay Wadd and Scott Ross. Ms. Richard stated that none of these campaign candidates were incumbents at the time the SDC employees worked on their campaigns. Ms. Richard stated that Senator Baumgart did not want help from the Senate Democratic Caucus and from Madison in general. She stated that Senator Baumgart had refused to speak to her about campaign related issues while she was working on the clock for the Senate Democratic Caucus and that he preferred to run his campaign his own way. She indicated that the Senate Democratic Caucus staff members, who went to Mr. Baumgart's district, did so on their own and not because Senator Baumgart directed them to do it. With regard to the Senate race in the 27th District, Ms. Richard stated that Jon Erpenbach was an SDC employee before he ran for the Senate. She stated that he took a leave of absence when he ran and that a number of SDC employees wanted to work on his campaign but that Ms. Richard felt that Julie Laundrie would be the best fit for the job. She discussed this with the defendant and the defendant did not want Ms. Laundrie to be assigned, but Ms. Richard fought hard on the issue until the defendant agreed to allow Ms. Laundrie to run the campaign. Ms. Richard stated that the defendant was obsessed with people's loyalty to him, and the defendant was not sure that Laundrie would be loyal to him. The defendant was concerned because Mr. Erpenbach is the brother-in-law of Senator Russ Feingold and the defendant was concerned that Erpenbach would be more loyal to Senator Feingold than to the defendant. Ms. Richard stated that Ms. Laundrie spent a great deal of her time during the summer and fall working on the Erpenbach campaign. Ms. Richard stated that Ms. Laundrie did take some vacation and compensatory time to work on the campaign but that Ms. Laundrie would not have had enough vacation or compensatory time to cover the amount of time that she worked on the Erpenbach campaign. Ms. Richard stated that during the 1998 campaign she and the defendant had numerous arguments about the Erpenbach race regarding strategy and other issues. Ms. Richard stated that over time the defendant began to contact SDC staff members directly instead of continuing to argue with her. Ms. Richard stated that these discussions occurred on a very regular basis and occurred in her State office and on her State phone. Ms. Richard stated that due to her numerous disagreements with the defendant, the defendant began calling other SDC staff members such as Ms. Laundrie to discuss campaign strategy directly with them. She stated that she also had conversations with Branda Weix, who was a data person at the caucus, who was responsible for creating fund-raising lists for campaigns during the campaign season. Weix told Ms. Richard that she was receiving direct calls from the defendant about the fund-raising lists. Ms. Richard stated that she also knows that the defendant called Lance Walter and Tara Vasby about the campaigns that they were working on. Ms. Richard stated that her role with the campaigns as the Senate Democratic Caucus Director included making sure the candidates were doing doors and making fund-raising calls. She also made sure that the candidates were lining up volunteers for election day and that they were meeting the goals for their campaign plans. The defendant would call her on a daily basis at the SDC office on her State phone to ask for an update on each candidate. She stated that defendant's role with the campaigns was to raise big donor money. Ms. Richard stated that the defendant made fund-raising calls based on lists that were prepared by Branda Weix. She stated that the defendant raised money for individual candidates, the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee and the Democratic Party. She also stated that she believed that the defendant was raising money for independent expenditure groups because there were times when the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee received PAC money after the SDCC had received its maximum amount of contributions and the defendant would tell her to send the check back to the donor. She believes that the defendant would then direct the donor to contribute the money in some other way like an independent expenditure group. Ms. Richard stated that in 1998 the main democratic independent expenditure group used by the defendant as run by an individual named Tom Boeder. She stated that Tom Boeder was placed in this position because he was a close friend of the defendant's chief of staff, Mr. Burnett. It was her belief that Mr. Burnett was giving Boeder information regarding campaigns and, therefore, she did not want to have anything to do with Mr. Burnett. She stated that she believed that Mr. Burnett was giving Boeder information because Mr. Burnett was very involved with the campaigns and kept a close eye on what was happening. Mr. Burnett would regularly ask her for detailed information on the candidates and for campaign brochures. The types of details he was asking for were things that would not be necessary for him to know if he was simply overseeing the campaign. She stated that Mr. Burnett had access to all of the Senate Democratic Caucus polling information. Your complaining witness states that he spoke with Julie Laundrie. Ms. Laundrie stated that she was hired as an analyst with the Senate Democratic Caucus in 1995 and worked on higher education issues and special elections. She stated that she worked on a special election in the 24th District in Stevens Point and then in 1996 she was put in charge of a State Senate race in Green Bay. Ms. Laundrie stated that during the 1996 campaign she did not have a great deal of contact with the defendant but that it was her understanding that campaign materials, which she provided to Joanna Richard, were then forwarded to the defendant for his approval. Ms. Laundrie stated that during the 1998 campaign the defendant was much more hands on. Ms. Laundrie stated that she ran the campaign for Jon Erpenbach who was a former co-worker of hers at the caucus. She said that the defendant was very involved because this was a significant race and also because the defendant had wanted another candidate to run instead of Erpenbach. Ms. Laundrie stated that when she ran Erpenbach's campaign, she did so from her Senate Democratic Caucus State office and that she did not take a leave of absence to do so. She stated that she managed the campaign, did get out the vote plans and assisted radio ads and lists. Ms. Laundrie discussed a continuum indicating during the time period in off election years Senate Democratic Caucus workers concentrated primarily on policy and budget work and then when the election cycle returned, the continuum shifted until the caucus workers devoted approximately 90% of their time to campaign work. Ms. Laundrie agreed that she worked at least 90% of her time for Erpenbach during his election from her State office and on State time. She stated that the defendant was very involved in this process and was very hands on. She stated that Joanna Richard, who was the director of the caucus at the time, was cut out from the process and that the defendant would contact her directly. Ms. Laundrie stated that during the Erpenbach campaign she sometimes spoke to the defendant everal times a day especially just before any television ad aired or before a filing deadline. Ms. Laundrie stated that she did her campaign work from her State office and from her home at night. However, she stated that the defendant only called her at her State office, never at home. Ms. Laundrie stated that the defendant had to sign off on all of the literature pieces for the Erpenbach campaign and that she delivered the literature pieces to the defendant's State office as well as perhaps to his law office. She stated that sometimes one of the defendant's State paid staffers would bring the pieces back to Ms. Laundrie or sometimes Ms. Laundrie went to get them herself from the defendant. Ms. Laundrie stated that after the election she received a thank you note from the defendant. Ms. Laundrie stated that all of her contacts with the defendant regarding campaign ads and other issues occurred over the phone when he called her in her State office. Ms. Laundrie stated that she didn't recall the defendant ever coming to the caucus office during the campaign but she understood and knew that the defendant was the Senate Democratic Caucus boss. Ms. Laundrie stated the defendant never cautioned her about doing campaign work in her State office, and she said that she felt that the defendant expected her to do the campaign work. Ms. Laundrie stated that based upon the number of contacts she had with the defendant, the nature of those contacts and where those contacts occurred, it was not possible that the defendant did not know that she was doing campaign work in her State office on State time. Ms. Laundrie stated that she felt she would have lost her job in the caucus office if Erpenbach had not won his election. Ms. Laundrie further stated that during the 1998 election campaign she knew that Lance Walter was working on the Robson campaign and that he was working the same amount of hours on the Robson campaign that she was working on the Erpenbach campaign. Your complaining witness states that Lance Walter testified before the John Doe in this matter and stated that he was hired by the Senate Democratic Caucus as an analyst in 1997 and ultimately became the Deputy Director of the caucus. Mr. Walter acknowledged that during election cycles it was a matter of routine for Senate Democratic Caucus staffers to perform campaign work in their offices using State phones and computers. Mr. Walter acknowledged that in 1998 he ran the campaign of current State Senator Judy Robson. Mr. Walter acknowledged that he was involved in a number of different areas of the Robson campaign including attempting to plan a budget. Mr. Walter stated that he consulted with the defendant in connection with fund-raising and budget issues for the Robson campaign. Mr. Walter stated that at the beginning of the race a campaign plan and budget was created and shared with the defendant. During the course of the race, there were further discussions between Mr. Walter and the defendant because the defendant's role was to step in and raise money for Senator Robson in an attempt to complete the campaign plan. Mr. Walter stated that the defendant would periodically check in with him to find out how much money had come into the campaign, how much money the campaign had on hand and to determine how much money the defendant needed to raise in order to help Senator Robson. Mr. Walter stated that as part of these fund-raising efforts he would have contact with Branda Weix at the State offices of the Senate Democratic Caucus who would produce fund-raising lists for the campaign. These requests would be given to Ms. Weix at her State office and the information would be received back from her at her State office. Mr. Walter further stated that some discussions with the defendant regarding the budget and fund-raising for the Robson campaign would have occurred during normal business hours while Mr. Walter was in his State office and others would have occurred after hours. Walter received no pay beyond his regular state salary. Your complaining witness states that Investigator Bisswurm spoke to State Senator Judy Robson and Senator Robson acknowledged that in 1998, when she ran for the State Senate, she was told by the defendant that she would have someone assigned to help her with media buys, campaign literature and other campaign related activities. She stated that Lance Walter was the person assigned by the defendant to consult or coordinate with her campaign. Senator Robson stated that she knew Lance Walter worked with the Senate Democratic Caucus but that she assumed that his assistance came through the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee. Senator Robson stated that it was her understanding that Walter's services were being paid for by the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee, but she never asked or checked to see who actually paid his salary. She stated that her campaign did not pay Walter's salary. She stated that she had previously run assembly campaigns and that she had received assistance from the Assembly Democratic Campaign Committee and that she assumed that individuals who provided that assistance had taken leaves of absence, vacation or compensatory time. Senator Robson stated that she assumed that the defendant got SDC workers to volunteer to take time off to work on campaigns but does not know that for sure. Senator Robson stated that in her 1998 campaign she received some of the graphics work for her campaign literature from Lance Walter but did not know where Walter received the graphics work. Senator Robson stated that her contacts with Walter were infrequent except for the last couple weeks prior to the election when he was around all the time. She stated that Mr. Walter did not help her with fund-raising but that she does know that Walter would meet with the defendant to talk about campaign strategy and what issues they should run on during the campaign. She acknowledged that she had discussions with the defendant about needing the defendant's assistance to raise money and that the defendant did raise some monies for her. Probable Cause as to Count 10 ( USE OF CAUCUS EMPLOYEES 2000 ELECTION ) Your complaining witness states that as set forth above, Andrew Gussert spoke to Investigator Bisswurm and informed Investigator Bisswurm that he was hired as the Director of the Senate Democratic Caucus in late January or early February of 1999. Mr. Gussert stated that prior to working at the Senate Democratic Caucus he had worked at the Assembly Democratic Caucus. He stated that sometime during mid to late January of 1999 he had a conversation with Mr. Burnett who he knew was the defendant's chief of staff. Mr. Gussert stated that he had met Mr. Burnett when Mr. Burnett managed the defendant's 1994 gubernatorial campaign. After discussing the position with Mr. Burnett and telling Mr. Burnett that he would take the job if he was offered, Mr. Gussert met with the defendant toward the end of January 1999. Mr. Gussert stated that this meeting took place at the defendant's law office off the square and lasted approximately 15 to 20 minutes. During this conversation, Mr. Gussert asked the defendant if Mr. Gussert would have the power to hire and fire people and the defendant responded, "You will have the same power that Joanna Richard had." Mr. Gussert stated that he was happy with that response because he thought at that point that Joanna Richard had the power to hire and fire people. He did not find out until after he accepted the position that Richard did not have hiring and firing power and that the defendant made all those decisions. Mr. Gussert stated that it became clear after a short time that the defendant was really the one who did the supervising and was in complete control of the Senate Democratic Caucus. Mr. Gussert stated he was told by the defendant after four months on the job that he might be replaced as director by a woman from Pennsylvania named Mary Eisenhower. Mr. Gussert stated that Eisenhower never came to work for the Senate Democratic Caucus but her friend, Brett Cott, was hired as an SDC employee by the defendant over Mr. Gussert's objection. Mr. Gussert stated that he soon learned that the defendant also controlled salary decisions at the Senate Democratic Caucus because there were employees that were denied raises even though he felt they deserved them and others who were given raises over his objection. Mr. Gussert stated that he found it difficult to manage the SDC employees from the start because they were all people who were hired when Joanna Richard was the director. Mr. Gussert stated that when Ms. Richard left, she had wanted Lance Walter to be named as the SDC director and when Mr. Gussert got the job, other SDC employees were not happy about it. Mr. Gussert stated that while he was the director there were a number of employees that were hired including Wendy Kloiber, Carrie Lynch, Andy Engel and Cindy Maracek. Mr. Gussert stated that he began a campaign plan in October of 1999 and listed those races that he thought might be targeted in the 2000 election. Mr. Gussert stated that he went through that list with the defendant and discussed with the defendant what those candidates would expect from the SDC. The defendant's main concerns were the office budget and fund-raising plans. The defendant was always concerned about how much money each candidate had raised. Mr. Gussert stated he did not create the actual fund-raising plans, but it was part of his job to make sure that the plans were completed. In January of 2000, Mr. Gussert stated that he and the defendant began to discuss candidate recruitment for open seats. He indicated that they were trying to find a candidate to oppose Senator Gary Drzewiecki. He stated that he took one trip to Green Bay with Lance Walter to do candidate recruitment and that they did a literature drop with Brown County Supervisor Dave Hansen and his family. He also spoke with other potential candidates who were referred to him. Mr. Gussert stated he would then send the defendant people he thought would make good candidates. He also tried to recruit candidates for other races, but it soon became clear that Brett Cott would do that job. Mr. Gussert stated that he would often times make decisions or recommendations and the defendant would comment on them and then make the final decision as to which candidate would be picked. With regard to the race against Gary Drzewiecki, Mr. Gussert stated that once it was decided that Dave Hansen would run against Drzewiecki, Lance Walter stepped forward and volunteered to work on the campaign. By February of 2000, the defendant was communicating directly with Lance Walter about the Hansen campaign. Mr. Gussert stated that Wendy Kloiber had been hired to run the Alice Clausing campaign but that Kloiber ran into some conflicts with Clausing's campaign staff and ultimately Carrie Lynch was assigned to run Clausing's campaign. Mr. Gussert stated that Lynch had originally been hired to do media relations but got the Clausing campaign by default because she was the only other woman at the SDC who was available to do the race. Mr. Gussert stated that Ms. Kloiber ended up working full-time on the Hansen campaign along with Lance Walter and spent a good deal of time in Green Bay prior to the election. Mr. Gussert said there continued to be problems with the Alice Clausing campaign because there were a number of people who were involved in the campaign all of whom had the impression that they were in charge. Mr. Gussert stated that he recalled being in a meeting in July or August of 2000 with the defendant along with Senator Clausing, Carrie Lynch and a number of other individuals where they discussed the Clausing campaign. The meeting took place in the SDC conference room during the workday. At the meeting, the defendant defined each person's role in the campaign and reminded them that they needed to work together. Mr. Gussert recalled the defendant telling everyone at the meeting, "If we don't win this, Andy is the one who will get fired." Mr. Gussert stated that as SDC Director during the 2000 campaign cycle, he believed his job was to implement whatever plan the defendant wanted him to and also act as a liaison between the defendant and the SDC staff. Up until July of 2000 the defendant worked through him if he needed something from a SDC staff member who was working on a campaign. After that time, the defendant contacted SDC staff members directly about the particular campaign they were working on. Mr. Gussert stated that from time to time he would ask staff members why they did something without his knowledge and the staff member would tell Mr. Gussert that the defendant had told them to do it. Mr. Gussert stated that he knows the defendant communicated with SDC staffers on a daily basis about the campaigns. He often heard them calling the defendant and answering questions about campaigns for him. The defendant would also call Mr. Gussert at Mr. Gussert's State office and tell him of a particular problem on a campaign and expect him to fix the problem. During the height of the campaign season, the defendant would call Mr. Gussert three or four times a day regarding campaigns. Mr. Gussert stated that from July through November of an election year other legislators knew not to request things from the SDC because the organization switched over to a campaign machine at that time. Mr. Gussert stated that he knew that the defendant was aware of what SDC employees were doing because the defendant communicated with those employees on a daily basis regarding their campaign activities. Mr. Gussert stated that he knew that Branda Weix would regularly communicate with the defendant because she would send the defendant memos and would carbon copy Mr. Gussert on the memos. Mr. Gussert stated that he knows that the data programs that Branda Weix developed for campaigns were extremely time intensive, but that he was not involved in the details of those programs. Mr. Gussert stated the defendant, Ms. Weix and Lance Walter worked together to develop those databases. Mr. Gussert stated that he also knew that the defendant was working directly with Cindy Maracek on campaign literature because there were times when campaign literature was sent to the printer without Mr. Gussert ever seeing it. Cindy Maracek told him that the defendant had approved the literature so it was sent to the printer. In addition, Mr. Gussert said that he knew the defendant approved all campaign literature because the defendant had told him, "I don't want anything to go out without my seeing it." Mr. Gussert stated the defendant was referring to campaign literature from the top tier races and his own campaign. Mr. Gussert stated that the defendant would call him on a regular basis to discuss campaign literature and to make edits to particular pieces. Ms. Maracek also told Mr. Gussert that the defendant had called her and made various edits to the literature so she'd change it to reflect the defendant's changes. Mr. Gussert stated that the defendant micro-managed the way that literature was written and scrutinized the language that was used in the pieces. Mr. Gussert further stated that he knows that the defendant directly contacted Carrie Lynch about the Clausing campaign and Lance Walter about the Hansen campaign. He knows that the defendant, Walter and some media consultants would meet to discuss campaign ads that would then be produced without Mr. Gussert's knowledge or input. Mr. Gussert stated that he believed the defendant also spoke with Jay Wadd regarding the Mark Meyer campaign but not as often as he spoke with Lynch and Walter because the Meyer campaign was not as high a priority as the Clausing and Hansen campaigns. Mr. Gussert stated that the defendant never told him that the SDC employees could not use State resources or time to run campaigns. The only thing that the defendant told him was to make sure that SDC employees took vacation or compensatory time if they were seen by outside people working on campaigns. The defendant was concerned about getting caught and did not appear to be concerned about the fact that it was wrong to have State employees working on campaigns while on State time. Your complaining witness states that he spoke with Wendy Kloiber and Wendy Kloiber told him that she did a substantial amount of work on the Hansen campaign in the 2000 election while she was employed by the Senate Democratic Caucus. She stated that she had originally been hired by the caucus to work on Alice Clausing's campaign but that eventually she moved to the Hansen campaign. She stated that she had a meeting with the defendant regarding her campaign work when she was working with Lance Walter on the Hansen race. She stated that she went to the defendant because she was concerned that Mr. Gussert was going to try to move her to another campaign. She stated that she had been told by another employee of the SDC that Gussert was thinking of moving Ms. Kloiber off the Hansen campaign and to the campaign of Kathleen Arciszewski. She stated that she was very upset at the prospect of moving to the Arciszewski campaign because there was no way that that race could be won, but that they had a chance to win the Hansen race. Ms. Kloiber stated that the defendant met with her and assured her that she would be kept on the Hansen race. Ms. Kloiber stated that she moved to Green Bay for several weeks before the election to work on the Hansen race. She stated that she did have contact with the defendant while she was in Green Bay and knows that the defendant was yelling at people to get out and do doors on the weekend. The defendant never asked her or anyone else about legitimate caucus work they were doing during this time and never asked her if she was taking vacation or compensatory time to cover the time she was living in Green Bay. She stated that she remembered calling the defendant during the Hansen campaign because Lance Walter had a death in the family, and there was an issue as to which of a number of competing events Mr. Hansen should appear at. She contacted the defendant, and the defendant made the decision as to what events Hansen should attend. Ms. Kloiber stated that there was no question that the defendant knew that she was working full time on the Hansen campaign. She stated it was during this time when she was working full time on the Hansen campaign that she started to realize how much control the defendant had over the Hansen race. She stated that she remembers there was an ad that focused on an abortion issue that was produced and paid for by an independent expenditure group in favor of Mark Meyer. When the ad aired, there were people who were concerned that this independent group was doing something that would take the Meyer campaign down the wrong track. She stated she knew nothing like that would ever happen with the Hansen campaign because the defendant had control over all the ads and approved them before they were aired. She further stated that she had conversations with the defendant about ads and she knew that he had some pull in the area in terms of what ads were run. Ms. Kloiber confirmed that Andy Gussert knew he would be fired if Alice Clausing lost her race because winning her race was one of the conditions of his employment. She stated that after Gussert left the caucus, she and Gussert were in competition for a job with the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. Ms. Kloiber stated the defendant called the party and pushed for her to get the job because of how well she had done on the Hansen campaign. Ms. Kloiber stated that sometime after the campaign she met with the defendant in his law office for a campaign debriefing. The defendant asked her what they could have done better and how she would rate her overall experience. Ms. Kloiber stated at the conclusion of this meeting the defendant informed her that she was being given a 10% raise. Ms. Kloiber stated that she believed that her raise was linked to her performance on the political campaigns. She stated that during this discussion, in which she was given her raise, there was never any discussion about anything other than campaign related work. During the debriefing, the defendant spoke to Ms. Kloiber about his fund-raising efforts for the Hansen campaign and apologized for failing to raise more funds. A short time later, after Andy Gussert was replaced as the director of the SDC by Jon Carson, Mr. Carson told Ms. Kloiber that he and the defendant were looking to hire a full-time fund-raiser. Ms. Kloiber stated that sometime shortly after the November 2000 elections, the defendant came to a staff meeting at the SDC offices. The defendant brought Mr. Burnett and Mike Brown who was another member of the defendant's staff. Ms. Kloiber stated that an individual named Darcy Luoma was also present at that meeting because she was interviewing for the job as the SDC director. At this meeting the defendant discussed in detail the political campaigns that had been run by the SDC staff and discussed with the SDC staff what they had done well and what they could do differently next time. Your complaining witness states that Investigator Bisswurm spoke to Darcy Luoma who informed Investigator Bisswurm that in December of 2000 she was contacted by the defendant about becoming the director of the SDC. Ms. Luoma stated that the defendant invited her to attend a SDC staff meeting so she could meet the staff and get a feel for what the job was all about. The defendant also wanted her at the meeting so she could give the staff a debriefing as to what she had done for the Gore campaign. Ms. Luoma stated that she has reviewed her calendar and handwritten notes and has determined that the meeting took place on January 16, 2001 during regular business hours. The meeting took place in the Caucus State office in the Firstar Bank building. Ms. Luoma stated that the focus of the meeting was debriefing campaigns. She stated that at the meeting a SDC staff member, who she did not know, later determined to be Carrie Lynch, prepared a handout regarding the Alice Clausing campaign entitled "Why We Lost the 10th". Ms. Luoma turned over to Investigator Bisswurm a copy of handwritten notes dated January 16, 2001 entitled "Senate Dem Caucus Election Debriefing Meeting". These notes were reflect a discussion about the Clausing campaign weaknesses and a discussion about the fact that in particular areas of Senator Meyer's district, Senator Meyer garnered 1,600 votes while Al Gore obtained 6,000 votes. Ms. Luoma stated that she did not take the job as director of the SDC because the job appeared to be too political for her. Your complaining witness states that he spoke with Carrie Lynch and Ms. Lynch informed him that she worked for the Senate Democratic Caucus from September 1999 until October 2001. Ms. Lynch stated that when she was hired at the caucus, she was hired to work as a communications director. She stated that she does not recall being told that the caucus did campaign work. Ms. Lynch stated that she was approached by the defendant at a fund-raiser at the Argus bar in the early part of 2000 and asked if she wanted to work on Senator Alice Clausing's campaign. Ms. Lynch said that the defendant told her that Clausing liked Lynch and wanted to work with Lynch. The defendant told Ms. Lynch that Alice Clausing was the top target in the 2000 campaign. Ms. Lynch stated that she took over as the campaign manager for Alice Clausing in June of 2000 because the campaign was disorganized and there were too many bosses. She stated that she performed some of her duties as manager of Clausing's campaign from her State caucus office in Madison. Ms. Lynch stated that during the last two weeks of the campaign she used vacation time and stayed in Menomonie, Wisconsin. Ms. Lynch stated that among her duties as campaign manager were to draft and approve literature that she described as "Vote For" literature and Ms. Lynch stated that she wrote most of Senator Clausing's campaign literature. Ms. Lynch acknowledged that the majority of Senator Clausing's campaign literature was probably written by Lynch at her State office on her State computer. Ms. Lynch said that the graphics work for the campaign was done by Cindy Maracek and that she would hand Maracek a rough draft of what she wanted and Maracek would come back to her with any questions and then Maracek would complete the work and bring it back to Lynch for editing. Ms. Lynch said that the majority of these transfers occurred in the caucus during regular business hours. Regarding contacts with the defendant during the campaign, Ms. Lynch said that the defendant knew that Lynch controlled the Clausing staff and that Ms. Lynch reported to the defendant on a regular basis. Ms. Lynch said that the defendant called her often on her cell phone and that she met with the defendant once in awhile. Ms. Lynch stated that two days rarely went by without talking to the defendant about the campaign. Ms. Lynch stated that from June of 2000 forward her work on the campaign of Senator Clausing became more intense as the election neared. Ms. Lynch stated that first she worked on the campaign on a weekly basis and then daily during the last few weeks before the election. Ms. Lynch stated that in addition to having graphics work done at the caucus by Ms. Maracek she obtained contributor lists and other data from Branda Weix and Joel Gratz who was another data analyst at the caucus. Ms. Lynch stated that she worked day hours Monday through Friday on the campaign approximately 10 to 20 hours per week during the summertime. Ms. Lynch stated that the campaign time went up in August and then again significantly in September to approximately 30 hours per week. She stated that she had regular contact with both Mr. Gussert and the defendant and the defendant was aware of the amount of time and commitment spent on the Clausing campaign by Ms. Lynch. Ms. Lynch stated that SDC employees did campaign work because nobody wanted to do it and there wasn't enough money. She further described the campaign work as "forced labor." Ms. Lynch stated that she also knew that SDC employee Lance Walter managed Senator Hansen's campaign and that Wendy Kloiber worked with Walter on Hansen's campaign and that SDC employee Jay Wadd ran Mark Meyer's campaign. Your complaining witness states that he was present when Cindy Maracek testified in a John Doe proceeding before the Honorable Sarah O'Brien. During that proceeding, Ms. Maracek acknowledged that during the 2000 election campaign she received requests from Lance Walter and Wendy Kloiber to produce campaign pieces for the Hansen campaign, requests from Jay Wadd to produce pieces for the Mark Meyer campaign and requests from Carrie Lynch to produce pieces for the Clausing campaign. Ms. Maracek further testified that Carrie Lynch told her that the campaign pieces that were being produced for the Clausing campaign were being signed off or approved by the defendant. Your complaining witness states that he has reviewed testimony provided by Lance Walter in a John Doe proceeding presided over by the Honorable Sarah O'Brien. Mr. Walter testified that in approximately January of 2000 he returned from a family leave and had a discussion with Andy Gussert in Senate Democratic Caucus office about targeted races for the 2000 campaign. During this conversation Mr. Gussert and Mr. Walter discussed a plan to target Senate District 30 which was then held by State Senator Gary Drzewiecki. During this conversation, the two of them decided that the Lambeau Field issue could be very effective against Senator Drzewiecki. Mr. Walter acknowledged that he ended up doing a significant amount of work on the campaign in the 30th Senate District including crafting the central message of the campaign and general strategy advice. Mr. Walter testified that when he became involved in the campaign which was eventually won by Brown County Supervisor Dave Hansen, he began working off a campaign that had previously been prepared by Senate Democratic Caucus analyst Brett Cott. Complaining witness states that he had previously been informed by Mr. Gussert that Brett Cott was hired at the SDC by the defendant over the objections of Mr. Gussert. Mr. Walter further testified that after a period of time Wendy Kloiber was assigned to assist him on the campaign and devoted increasingly large amounts of time to the Hansen campaign. Mr. Walter acknowledged that as election day approached the majority of the work done in the caucus office by himself and Ms. Kloiber was in furtherance of the Hansen campaign. Mr. Walter indicated that his involvement with the Green Bay race began in approximately January of 2000 when he started to make some calls in the Green Bay area to see if they could find a potential candidate. Mr. Walter indicated that he knew some people in Green Bay, and he would call them up and tell them that they were looking for a candidate and ask for names. His intention was to try to flush out a candidate or a least a small group of candidates that the defendant and Mr. Walter could meet with to talk about running for office. Mr. Walter stated that he made contact with several individuals one of which was Dave Hansen. Mr. Walter indicated that he traveled to Green Bay with the defendant for the purposes of attending a public hearing. Thereafter, he and the defendant met with the individuals that Mr. Walter had identified. Mr. Walter stated that shortly thereafter it became clear that both Mr. Walter and the defendant's preference was that Dave Hansen would be their candidate. Mr. Walter indicated that Mr. Hansen eventually agreed to run for State Senate and Mr. Walter began to work on a campaign plan and a budget. Mr. Walter indicated that there were frequent discussions with the defendant about how much the race would cost. Mr. Walter stated he discussed with the defendant his concerns that the Green Bay media market was an expensive market and that Mr. Hansen had no financial means and no history of raising money. The defendant assured both Mr. Walter and Mr. Hansen that the defendant would raise the funds necessary to run the campaign. Mr. Walter stated that he continued to act as an intermediary between Mr. Hansen and the defendant in order to insure that Mr. Hansen continued his campaign. Mr. Walter stated that in general when he is running a campaign, he identifies a target figure of funds that need to be raised and attempts to identify various sources that are available to the candidate to raise money. Mr. Walter stated that generally a hole would be left, sometimes large, sometimes as much as half of the money, where there was no clear source as to where the money would come from. Mr. Walter stated that the defendant's role was then to come in and fill that hole as best he could. Mr. Walter stated that this was the defendant's role in the Hansen campaign. Mr. Walter stated that throughout the course of the campaign he would talk to the campaign and determine how much money had come in and compare that to what was needed and when the money was needed. If Mr. Walter determined that there was a cash flow problem, he would relay that information to the defendant. Mr. Walter stated that he was not directly involved in raising money by the defendant but often times the defendant would call Mr. Walter and ask Mr. Walter to come by the defendant's law office and pick up checks that were to go to the Green Bay race. Mr. Walter also indicated that the defendant was involved in approving literature pieces for the Hansen campaign. Mr. Walter indicated that he would write text for the Hansen literature pieces and bounce ideas off of other campaign workers. After they got the literature to a certain point the defendant felt that it was important because of the critical importance of the race that the defendant himself sign off on the literature pieces. Mr. Walter stated that the literature pieces for the Hansen campaign would be run by the defendant before they would be sent to the printer. Mr. Walter stated that at one point in time during the campaign it was clear that there were difficulties raising money and the defendant approached Mr. Walter and told him that the defendant wanted Mr. Walter to meet with a fund-raiser that could help fund-raising on the Hansen campaign. The defendant asked Mr. Walter to go to Milwaukee and meet with Barb Candy who the defendant indicated would help raise money for the Hansen campaign. Mr. Walter did meet with Ms. Candy who agreed to provide assistance to the Hansen campaign. Complaining witness states that his investigation revealed that Ms. Candy along with Meghan Bitenc, who was employed in the defendant's State office, performed fund-raising tasks for the Hansen campaign. Mr. Walter testified that going forward from June of 2000, approximately 40% of his time at the caucus was spent working on the Hansen campaign. Mr. Walter further testified that the defendant was aware of what he was doing for the Hansen campaign and aware of the kind of time it takes to do those things. Mr. Walter testified that it was understood that the defendant knew that Mr. Walter was working at the caucus and that the reason that the defendant could essentially talk to Mr. Walter and ask him to do political things was because Mr. Walter worked for the defendant. Mr. Walter further testified that the defendant was aware of the amount of data work being done by Branda Weix at the caucus and the amount of graphics work being done by Cindy Maracek at the caucus. Mr. Walter went on to clarify that he knew that the defendant was the leader of the caucus because Mr. Walter had previously lost a job at another caucus when there was a change in leadership. It was clear to Mr. Walter that when the defendant directed him to take steps to convince Dave Hansen to run for State Senate, Mr. Walter had no option of refusing the defendant's request. Your complaining witness states that Investigator Bisswurm spoke to Meghan Bitenc who informed her that she was hired by the defendant to work as a full time state employee on his legislative staff in January of 2000. Ms. Bitenc stated that she had no policy experience prior to being hired by the defendant but had worked exclusively on political campaigns. Ms. Bitenc stated that when she was hired she believed that she would work on the defendant's legislative staff for a while to get to know people and then would transfer over and work on the defendant's campaign in 2000. She assumed that she would have to take a leave to do this because this was what she had seen done in other states. Ms. Bitenc stated that during the spring of 2000 while working in the defendant's state office, the defendant directed her to call Barb Candy who Ms. Bitenc knew to be a fundraiser. Eventually Ms. Bitenc began to work with Ms. Candy and the defendant on fundraising calls. Ms. Bitenc stated that these calls included calls made by the defendant to raise money for the Hansen campaign. Ms. Bitenc stated that the defendant would make these calls during the regular business day from his law office and that her job was to assist him and take notes regarding the commitments that he received. She stated that she did not take leave or vacation to do this fundraising activity with Mr. Burnett. She also traveled to Green Bay with Ms. Candy for the purposes of meeting with Dave Hansen to discuss fundraising, again without taking any leave or vacation. Ms. Bitenc stated that at one point she raised her concerns about the mixing of campaign and legislative work to Mr. Burnett after a reporter came to the Senate office to ask Mr. Burnett a question about the campaign. Ms. Bitenc thought it was strange that the press seemed to know that state employees worked on campaigns. Mr. Burnett told her that that was the way it was, both democrats and republicans did it and the press knew about it. She stated this conversation was memorable because when she had worked in Virginia, the campaign work was separated from the legislative work. Your complaining witness states that he has spoken with State Senator Dave Hansen, and Senator Hansen acknowledged that he was recruited by the defendant to run for the State Senate in the 30th Senate District. The defendant told Senator Hansen that he would help by making phone calls and raising money for the Hansen campaign. Senator Hansen said that the defendant told him that Lance Walter would be in touch with him during the campaign. Senator Hansen stated that he did not have regular meetings with Mr. Walter but did speak to him by phone on a regular basis. Senator Hansen stated that Wendy Kloiber also worked with Lance Walter on the campaign. Senator Hansen stated that he believed that Lance Walter and Wendy Kloiber worked for Senator Chvala's office or the Democratic Party. He stated he was unaware that Lance Walter and Wendy Kloiber were State employees. Senator Hansen stated that both Walter and Kloiber were very helpful with the campaign, but he didn't see much of them until the last month or so before the election. Senator Hansen also indicated that Lance Walter made arrangements for Sue Meinholz, who was the defendant's State office manager to do the campaign finance reports. Mr. Walter testified that the defendant made the arrangements for Sue Meinholz to do the bookkeeping and campaign finance reports for the Hansen campaign. Your complaining witness states that he spoke with former Senator Alice Clausing and Ms. Clausing acknowledged that Carrie Lynch had provided assistance to her 2000 campaign. Ms. Clausing acknowledged that she knew that Lynch worked for the Senate Democratic Caucus. Ms. Clausing stated that although she knew that Ms. Lynch was an employee of the SDC she assumed that Lynch was providing services on her own time or that she was taking vacation or compensatory time. To Page 3 >>>