Elections Commission Complaint Filed Against Nelson Campaign for False Endorsement
By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi, Franklin Community News
There’s a line in politics you’re not supposed to cross.
You can criticize your opponent.
You can defend your record.
You can even go negative.
But you don’t get to invent someone else’s endorsement—and present it to voters as fact.
Yet that is exactly what happened in Franklin.
The Claim That Crosses the Line
A campaign mailer distributed by “Friends of John Nelson” states:
“Endorsed by Busalacchi”
That is not opinion.
That is not interpretation.
That is presented as a statement of fact.
And it is false.
No Endorsement Was Ever Made
Let’s be clear:
-
There is no endorsement of any candidate on FCNewsWI.com
-
There is no personal statement where I endorse Basil Ryan
-
There is a direct public statement from me saying the opposite:
“That’s not my place to endorse. The facts are presented and it’s up to the voters.”
All articles are clearly labeled:
Criticism is not endorsement.
Reporting is not campaigning.
What the Media Got Right — And What It Missed
The Journal Sentinel reports that the mailer claims I endorsed a candidate.
But that’s not the issue.
The issue is whether that claim is true.
It is not.
What the Mailer Doesn’t Tell You
Franklin Community News is not a single voice.
-
Multiple contributors
-
Multiple administrators
-
Different viewpoints at different times
The record shows:
-
One post referencing an endorsement
-
Other posts promoting a different candidate entirely
-
And my own direct statement declining endorsement
That is not a unified position.
The mailer removes that complexity—and replaces it with a false, singular claim.
FULL CONTEXT THE MAILER OMITS
1. Restraining Order / Guilty Plea – Ongoing Litigation and Broader Allegations
The mailer references a guilty plea related to a restraining order.
What it does not disclose is that the matter is part of ongoing legal proceedings and broader allegations currently documented in court filings.
-
Milwaukee County Case No. 2024CM001419
-
Post-conviction motion filed and under review
In addition, this matter is directly connected to a filed Petition for a John Doe investigation.
That filing identifies a coordinated pattern involving:
-
Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor
-
Milwaukee County Supervisor Kathleen Vincent
-
Franklin Mayor John Nelson
-
Franklin Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann
The petition alleges that these officials were involved in:
-
Assisting in the procurement of the restraining order
-
Coordinating actions with other actors and agencies
-
And using the restraining order process as part of a broader effort to respond to and suppress protected speech
As outlined in that filing, the restraining order:
-
Was not an isolated legal event
-
But part of a broader sequence of actions involving public officials
-
And later became the foundation for subsequent criminal proceedings tied to that same speech
What This Means
The mailer presents the restraining order as a standalone, resolved issue.
That is not accurate.
It is:
-
Under post-conviction challenge
-
Connected to a separate John Doe proceeding
-
And tied to allegations involving multiple elected officials and coordinated actions
None of that context is disclosed to voters.
2. Disorderly Conduct Citation
The mailer states that I was “found guilty of disorderly conduct" and threatening Eichmann, Nelson and Taylor.
What it does not disclose is the underlying police record and current legal challenge.
Police records show:
-
The responding officer concluded there was no direct threat
-
The conduct was recognized as protected speech
-
The matter was initially marked “no process”
The citation was issued only after the matter was revisited and Nelson ordered the Chief to issue a municipal citation
Police records further reflect that the Mayor of Franklin, Nelson advised the officer:
“If I were in your shoes, I’d write up State DC and Bail Jumping.”
The matter is now under active court review:
-
Case No. 2026CV001181
-
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
-
Currently pending
This is not a settled conclusion—it is actively being challenged.
3. Allegations of “Threats”
The mailer claims I made threats toward elected officials, Nelson, Taylor, Eichmann.
But the official police report states clearly:
There was no direct threat toward any individual.
The report reflects that the statements were recognized as speech, not criminal threats.
The mailer replaces that finding with a different conclusion.
4. Current Charge – Active Litigation and Legal Challenge
The mailer also references a current charge related to an alleged restraining order violation.
What it does not disclose is that the charge is actively being challenged as legally defective:
-
Milwaukee County Case No. 2025CM003518
-
Motion to dismiss filed
-
Motion hearing held March 17, 2026
-
Decision scheduled for April 23, 2026
The motion argues that:
-
No valid injunction was in effect
-
The alleged conduct falls outside the scope of the injunction
-
The complaint fails to establish probable cause
Context Reflected in Police Records
The underlying police report reflects that the communication at issue was a press release related to a John Doe proceeding, which referenced the name of the complainant.
The report further reflects that this document was provided to the complainant by Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor.
This was not direct contact with the complainant.
It was the circulation of information, a press release, related to a legal matter involving public officials.
Additional Misleading Characterization
The mailer further describes the matter as involving a:
“single mother with children”
That description is not a legal element of any charge and is not relevant to the issues before the court.
Its inclusion serves to introduce emotional framing, rather than provide material facts.
Additional Media and Social Media Narratives
Following publication of the Journal Sentinel article, additional commentary circulated on social media platforms, including Franklin Today.
Those discussions highlight two issues:
Selective Use of Social Media Content
Isolated Facebook posts have been used to suggest a personal endorsement.
However:
-
The page is a multi-admin platform
-
Content reflects multiple voices
-
And I have clearly stated I do not endorse candidates
Mischaracterization of a Judicial Character Letter
A letter submitted by mayoral candidate Steve Olson in
Case No. 2024CM001419 has also been circulated.
That letter is:
-
A judicial character reference
-
Not a political document
-
Not a campaign endorsement
It addresses:
-
Third-party involvement
-
Lack of direct impact on the complainant
-
And concerns about how the matter was handled
It was submitted to a court—not voters.
Unanswered Questions Regarding Source and Disclosure
To further clarify, I submitted an open records request seeking:
👉 any requests made for records in my case
The official response confirmed:
👉 There have been no open records requests other than my own.
This establishes that the document was not obtained through a formal open records process.
That does not determine how it was obtained by Franklin Today.
But it does narrow the possibilities to:
-
Direct court access
-
Access by a party
-
Or sharing by someone with access
Why This Matters
The issue is not whether the document is public.
The issue is transparency.
When:
-
Legal documents are introduced into a political narrative
-
No authorship is identified
-
No sourcing is disclosed
-
And context is omitted
those are legitimate questions.
What This Pattern Shows
Across every claim, the same pattern emerges:
-
False endorsement presented as fact
-
Disputed matters framed as final
-
Contradicted findings omitted
-
Active litigation ignored
-
Emotional language inserted
-
Sourcing and context not disclosed
Nelson, Taylor, or Eichmann implicated
Read the Record Yourself
Why This Matters
If campaigns can:
-
Put words in someone else’s mouth
-
Remove context from legal matters
-
And reshape facts to fit a narrative
Then voters are not being informed—they are being influenced.
That Should Concern Every Voter
Because today it’s:
“Endorsed by Busalacchi”
Tomorrow it could be:
“Endorsed by you”
Final Thought
You don’t get to manufacture credibility.
You don’t get to assign endorsements.
And you don’t get to tell voters someone supports you—
when they explicitly said they don’t.
This piece reflects the author’s personal opinion and experiences. All statements are presented as commentary protected under the First Amendment. Readers are encouraged to review public records, filings, and documented evidence referenced throughout this article.
Dr. Richard Busalacchi is the Publisher of Franklin Community News, where he focuses on government transparency, community accountability, and local public policy. He believes a community’s strength depends on open dialogue, honest leadership, and the courage to speak the truth—even when it makes powerful people uncomfortable.
🕯️ The solution isn’t another insider in a new office. It’s sunlight, scrutiny, and the courage to vote differently.
Because until voters demand honest, transparent government, the corruption won’t stop — it will only change titles.
Elections have consequences — and Franklin’s next one may decide whether transparency makes a comeback.
💬 If you value hard-hitting, fact-based investigative reporting about our hometown of Franklin — follow Franklin Community News on Facebook.
Together, we can keep local government honest, transparent, and accountable
— for the greater good.
💬 If you value hard-hitting, fact-based investigative reporting about our hometown of Franklin — follow Franklin Community News on Facebook.
Together, we can keep local government honest, transparent, and accountable
— for the greater good.
© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.
Comments
Post a Comment