This post originally appeared at https://wisconsindailystar.com/politics/far-left-wisconsin-supreme-court-justices-campaign-accused-of-smurfing-or-money-laundering-donations/mkittle/2023/09/23/

The Wisconsin Ethics Commission launched an investigation into newly installed Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz’s campaign on allegations of money laundering and fraud.

The investigation, first reported by conservative talk show host Dan O’Donnell of NewsTalk 1130 WISN in Milwaukee, claims the far-left justice’s campaign engaged in “smurfing,” using unwitting small-dollar donors to launder substantial cash donations.

Protasiewicz’s campaign and liberal allies quickly attacked the complaint and the “election denier” leading it, attempting to brush it off as another conspiracy from “right-wing extremists.”

The complaint, filed earlier this month by New London, WI-based Election Watch, alleges it has identified more than $1 million of illegally laundered money into Janet for Justice’s election campaign.

“It appears individuals, or those being smurfed, are largely used to aggregate mostly less than the $200 reporting limit of individuals to avoid detection,” the group said, according to O’Donnell’s story.

Election Watch officials told O’Donnell that within a day and a half of filing the complaint, the ethics commission launched an investigation. A commission representative reportedly told the organization that they may want to pursue a criminal investigation. The ethics commission is not empowered to issue criminal charges.

Agency officials cannot comment on complaints, including whether one has been filed.

A smurf, in short, is a money launderer engaged in what is commonly referred to as “structuring.” Structuring involves breaking down large financial transactions into multiple smaller amounts (in this case donations) to avoid regulatory scrutiny.

“By keeping each transaction below the reporting threshold, smurfs aim to conceal the true nature and source of the funds being laundered,” according to Sanction Scanner, an anti-money laundering solutions provider.

The contributions, relatively tiny, like the 1980s blue cartoon characters, have been made in the names of people who have no idea that they have ultimately “given” thousands of dollars to a campaign.

Smurfing is what methamphetamine makers do to buy the regulated precursor chemicals to manufacture the illicit drug.

“By keeping each transaction below the reporting threshold, smurfs aim to conceal the true nature and source of the funds being laundered,” the anti-money laundering firm writes in a blog. “However, it’s important to note that smurfing is a serious criminal offense with severe legal consequences. In fact, financial institutions and authorities are actively working to detect and prevent smurfing, as it poses a significant threat to the integrity of the financial system.”

Election Watch said it has identified thousands of small-dollar donations made in the names of hundreds of mostly elderly donors, none of whom had any idea that they had made such donations when a private investigator asked about them, according to the complaint.

As O’Donnell notes, one such alleged smurf, an 84-year-old man who lives in Whitewater, donated $856.75 to Janet for Justice in 71 different contributions — some for as little as $1.67. This donor, according to Federal Election Commission data, made 15,620 different donations totalling $62,410.01 over the past three election cycles.

“He did not make anywhere near these number of contributions or dollar amounts,” said Election Watch, noting that the man confirmed as much to a private investigator.

Protasiewicz, in April, won a decisive seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, shifting control of the state’s highest court to liberals for the first time in 15 years. At a cost of more than $50 million, the Supreme Court election is the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history.

Election Watch is led by Peter Bernegger and includes reporting by James O’Keefe, the lightning rod founder of Project Veritas who was ousted by the conservative investigative reporting nonprofit in February.

Both men are controversial, to be sure. Bernegger served time in federal prison on mail fraud and bank fraud convictions. He was sentenced to 70 months and ultimately ordered to pay $1.7 million in restitution, according to court records. Bernegger has spent years trying to get the conviction vacated.

Project Veritas filed a lawsuit against O’Keefe in May, accusing him of breach of contract by allegedly engaging in “incredibly troubling workplace and financial misconduct,” including screaming at colleagues and asking staffers to run errands for him, such as picking up laundry and cleaning his boat, according to CBS News.

None of that means that Election Watch’s charges aren’t merited.

Yet, the Wisconsin Law Journal, the only publication other than O’Donnell’s WISN website that bothered to report on the smurfing allegations, hammered home Bernegger’s background in attempting the undercut the validity of Election Watch’s complaint.

“The same election denier and convicted felon who allegedly stalked Elections Commission chair Meagan Wolfe has filed a complaint against Wisconsin Supreme Court Candidate Janet Protasiewicz,” the story states in its lead sentence.

The Law Journal quoted Madison-based Big Labor lawyer Lester Pines, who endorsed Protasiewicz in the spring election and contributed more than $1,100 to her campaign, as an expert source on the subject.

“It’s basically an idle rumor that someone is pedaling to get more listeners for a talk show. It’s worthless,” Pines told the publication.

“Anyone who believes an allegation from a radio talk show host is wasting their time. Maybe there is an investigation and complaint. People make complaints all of the time, that doesn’t mean they are true. It’s just like the complaint the election was fraudulent. It wasn’t. It’s not even worth the paper it is written on. Why should we believe him?” Pines added.

Investigators might tell you why shouldn’t the complaint be believed. The Wisconsin Ethics Commission can only conduct an investigation upon a finding of reasonable suspicion. Apparently, the commission has found reasonable suspicion.

The Law Journal also quoted Sam Roecker, spokesperson for Protasiewicz’s campaign. Roecker, perhaps not surprisingly, agreed with Pines.

“Right-wing extremists are desperate and peddling conspiracy theories about an election they lost by 11 points. The campaign is complying with election laws, despite what a widely discredited individual who’s obsessed with attacking our democracy says,” the campaign spokesperson told the publication.

The Wisconsin Law Journal said it reached out to O’Donnell, but apparently did not reach out to Bernegger, according to the story.

Bernegger did not return The Wisconsin Daily Star’s request for comment. But he did write on his X account (formerly Twitter) that there is “so much more to come.”

“An AMENDMENT adding more illegal transactions and dollar amounts has already been filed against Janet For Justice. Up next: criminal complaint against Janet For Justice, against Janet and her minions who participated in this scheme. Stand up Americans, take back our country. The corrupt liberals did this nationwide.,” he wrote.

Mr. O’Donnell is reporting on this again right now with more information about political campaign money laundering, i.e. Smurfing. 1130 WISN or iheardradio. So much more to come. https://t.co/IQygq8dHQY Appreciate your donations to help us fight this massive corruption. An… https://t.co/5UxPcphxKx

— Peter Bernegger (@PeterBernegger) September 21, 2023

– – –

M.D. Kittle is the National Political Editor for The Star News Network.
Photo “Janet Protasiewicz” by Janet for Justice. Background Photo “Wisconsin Supreme Court” by Daderot. CC0 1.0.

The post Far-Left Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice’s Campaign Accused of ‘Smurfing’, or Money Laundering Donations appeared first on The Wisconsin Daily Star.