[Federal District Judge] Randa, citing Citizens United and more recent McCutcheon Supreme Court ruling, argues that issue advocacy coordination cannot rise to the level of “quid pro quo corruption” that election law is meant to prevent. He dismissed the question of whether Club for Growth coordinated with the Walker campaign — which they deny — because the state cannot regulate the speech in question anyway.“Issue advocacy money goes to the issue advocacy organization to provide issue advocacy speech. A candidate‘s coordination with and approval of issue advocacy speech, along with the fact that the speech may benefit his or her campaign because the position taken on the issues coincides with his or her own, does not rise to the level of ‘favors for cash,'” Randa wrote. “Logic instructs that there is no room for a quid pro quo arrangement when the views of the candidate and the issue advocacy organization coincide.”