By: Jason Easley and Sarah JonesJun. 6th, 2011more from Jason Easley and Sarah Jones

A new letter provides evidence that the Wisconsin GOP is coordinating an effort to place fake Democratic candidates on recall election ballots.

According to letters obtained by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel local leaders in the Wisconsin Republican Party are organizing their fellow Republicans to get enough signatures to place fake Democrats on recall election ballots. The fake Democrats would run in Democratic primaries for the seats that are held by Republican Sens. Randy Hopper and Luther Olsen.

Both of the fake Democrats Rol Church and John Buckstaff have a history of almost exclusive political donations to Republicans. The letter of support for Buckstaff’s candidacy spells out the Wisconsin GOP’s motives in clear black and white,

Under a section titled We Can Fight Back, 6th Congressional District Chairman Dan Feyen wrote, “

We need to make sure Democratic challengers face primaries to allow our Republicans time to mount a campaign.

The GAB is delaying Democrat elections in order to give them more time to organize. We need the same! A Democratic primary would push the general election back by one month so that Senator Hopper can have more time to organize a campaign against his liberal challenger.”

In case his motives weren’t totally obvious, under the What YOU Can Do section, Feyen wrote, “Please join us in supporting John Buckstaff’s “protest candidacy” on the Democratic ballot by signing the enclosed nomination paper, and returning it to us right away!”

Last week a secret tape emerged of Wisconsin Republicans discussing how they could rig the recall process by running a fake Democrat in a primary against Jennifer Shilling, who is challenging Republican Sen. Dan Kapanke.

Contrary to the indisputable evidence quickly compiling against them, Wisconsin Republican candidates have been running around like chickens with their heads cut off denying any knowledge or participation in the spoiler candidacy because they know voters don’t like dirty tricks. While it is perfectly legal for a “spolier candidate” to run, what is not as clear is if one candidate or party is conspiring to run a spoiler candidate in order to siphon votes off from their opponent.

Most of the time, candidates have to let these things go because there’s no proof of the conspiracy. But in this case, the proof is on tape and in letters, where they have admitted that the Wisconsin Republican Party is behind the entire plan to get two stooge candidates who are not really Democrats to run as Democrats.

Of course, the only reason someone would feel a need to trick the voters in this manner is if they feel threatened. In this case, the Republicans feel threatened because the people don’t like what they’re doing. The people don’t like their failure to comply with laws and their attacks on the middle class. One would think the best way to deal with this would be to regroup and have a listen to the people rather than try to pull a fast one on them — but this is the Wisconsin Republican Party.

Before the conservatives start screaming about whining liberals and no proof, let us take a small ride back in time to 2010 when the Tea Party was suing Alan Grayson over their imagined belief (with no proof) that he might have been involved in running a spoiler candidate. They served his wife with a subpoena meant for Alan, hoping to find some proof of their theory.

The Orlando Sentinel reported:

Tea party activists began serving subpoenas Wednesday on Democratic U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson and seven Florida Tea Party candidates in an attempt to prove Grayson conspired to create the political party to field a spoiler candidate in his own race.
If the legal move is successful, it could provide ammunition against Grayson in the weeks leading up to his Election Day showdown with Republican challenger Dan Webster. Grayson is in Washington, D.C., but a subpoena was served on his wife at their Orlando home in his absence this morning.

Florida Republican Party officials contend that Dunmire is a spoiler meant to pull conservative votes away from Webster, easing the way for Grayson’s re-election.

So we can see that accusations even suggesting that someone might be conspiring to run a spoiler candidate can impugn the character of the accused. Accusations of running a spoiler candidate can be used as a political weapon and could be used to restrict lesser known, under-funded candidates from running. Caution is in order, then, when making this accusation.

However, when you have the party on tape and in writing admitting that they are doing this in not one, but two races, you only have to repeat their own words and let the constituents judge for themselves.

You don’t need to run a spoiler candidate if you are popular with the people, you don’t get six easily certified recall campaigns against you if you are listening to the people, and you don’t need to sue the opposing party with slanderous accusations of using a spoiler candidate with no proof of it if you actually have a platform the people might find appealing. On the other hand, if you’re caught on tape and in writing conspiring to run a spoiler candidate so as to subvert democracy, perhaps your priorities as a political party are unimaginably far out of touch with your purported purpose of serving the people.