Search results
Tough Legal Future for Public ‘Triggered’ Funds?
The legal future isn’t promising for certain provisions in state laws to help publicly financed candidates get a more equal footing with wealthy self-financed candidates who outspend them.
That’s one thrust of a New York Times editorial about an appeals court ruling this week that struck down such “trigger provisions” in Connecticut’s public financing law for campaigns (see Gavel Grab). The editorial was headlined, “Send in the Tycoons.”
“On Tuesday,” the editorial said, “a federal appeals court made it even easier for wealthy candidates to dominate politics in Connecticut, and a series of lawsuits in other states seemed designed to provoke a similar decision from the Supreme Court.”
While the Supreme Court has not ruled on controversial provisions like the ones in Connecticut’s law, it has been asked to consider the constitutionality of a provision in Arizona law that was upheld by another appeals court.
Even before it has decided whether to hear that appeal, the Supreme Court, according to the Times editorial, “went out of its way to intervene in the Arizona gubernatorial race, cutting off triggered funds to candidates who were expecting them. The direction of the court’s thinking, assuming it decides to rule in these cases, seems clear.” Read more
No commentsWI High Court: ‘A Mess’?
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s deep division over whether to sanction one of its own, Justice Michael Gableman, continues to draw editorial commentary critical of the court.
Last week, the Wisconsin Judicial Commission dropped an ethics complaint accusing Justice Gableman of dishonesty in a 2008 campaign ad, after the high court had deadlocked 3-3 over the ethics case (see Gavel Grab).
An editorial in the Appleton Post-Crescent lamented the non-verdict, saying, “The fact that one of the most important ethical issues in Wisconsin Supreme Court history fizzled to a conclusion tells you all you need to know about the current court’s dysfunction.” It concluded about the court, which has divided sharply over ethics issues:
“Officially, Gableman’s the winner, though we hope the court of public opinion will rule against him.
“In the bigger picture, the whole state’s the loser. Our highest court is a mess, with no hope in sight.”
An article in WI Magazine by Mike Nichols, senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, took a broader look at acrimony in the court. The article was entitled, “Justice Decried: Discord has split the state Supreme Court, damaging its productivity and reputation for fairness.” Read more
No commentsScholar: Caperton Has Fueled Real Reforms
The Supreme Court’s landmark Caperton v. Massey decision in 2009 already has led to improvements in protecting courts from the influence of campaign cash, according to a legal scholar’s draft law review article.
James Sample of the Hofstra School of Law (photo), and formerly of the Brennan Center for Justice, takes a look at state court reform developments in the year since the high court decision.
Sample’s draft article is entitled, “Court Reform Enters the Post-Caperton Era” (thanks to Rick Hasen’s Election Law blog for the tip.) Sample discusses reform efforts involving judicial recusal and public financing, chiefly in Wisconsin, Michigan and West Virginia (all of which Gavel Grab has tracked closely: click here for Wisconsin, here for Michigan or here for West Virginia). Read more
No commentsHopes Buoyed for WI Public-Finance Law?
Some defenders of a controversial new Wisconsin law for public financing of state Supreme Court candidates are taking heart from a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision.
The appeals court upheld the matching funds provision of Arizona’s public financing system for statewide and legislative offices (see Gavel Grab).
In Wisconsin, two lawsuits have been filed challenging the constitutionality of the state’s new law. And the Ninth Circuit ruling has “boosted the hopes” of defenders of that statute, Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause in Wisconsin, writes in a Madison Capital Times commentary.
Heck calls the Ninth Circuit ruling a “stunning victory for reformers” and a “very big and significant reason for optimism.” He likens the matching funds provision in Arizona’s law to a provision in the Wisconsin law that critics have attacked.
The Arizona provision provides additional taxpayer dollars to publicly-funded candidates if their privately-funded opponent exceeds a spending limit set by the state.
It was another reflection of the controversial nature of the Arizona law, meanwhile, that a Wall Street Journal editorial questioned the Ninth Circuit decision. “In upholding Arizona’s law, the oft-overturned Ninth Circuit has invited another rebuke from the Supreme Court,” the editorial said.
You can read about Wisconsin’s law, and about debates over legality of public financing plans for judicial elections, in Gavel Grab. You also can learn more from Justice at Stake’s issues page on public financing laws.
No commentsMN Joins States Passing New Disclosure Laws
Minnesota’s legislators have voted unanimously to make it easier for citizens to follow the money when it comes to corporate political spending.
In a session that just wrapped up, the lawmakers agreed to require corporations and unions to disclose their expenditures to influence elections. The legislation was a response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, according to a Star Tribune article.
The legislation also requires a disclaimer in campaign materials that tells who paid for the advertisement and what candidate it opposes or supports, according to a statement by the Midwest Democracy Network. It is an ally of Justice at Stake.
The Minnesota measure won strong approval with a unanimous vote in the Senate and a 131-0 vote in the House.
Minnesota joined a growing list of states where legislators have passed reform bills for greater disclosure of corporate political spending following the blockbuster campaign finance decision. These states include Colorado, where legislation was awaiting the governor’s signature, Arizona, South Dakota, West Virginia and Iowa (see Gavel Grab.)
In another state, Wisconsin, the Government Accountability Board adopted a rule for greater disclosure requirements, and the legislature chose not to override the new regulation. Read more
1 commentFriday Media Summary
JUSTICE STEVENS
ABA Journal: Stevens Explains Death Penalty Stance, Bow Ties
Debra Cassens Weiss – 5/6/2010
Washington Post: Justice Stevens casts a long shadow over Supreme Court
Robert Barnes – 5/6/2010
SCOTUSBlog: The last common law justice?
Rodger D. Citron – 5/6/2010
SCOTUS NOMINATION COMMENTARY
CBS News/Crossroads: Supreme Court Contenders: Pros and Cons
Jan Crawford – 5/6/2010
NY Times: Think the Question Is ‘Who?’ How About ‘When?’
MARK LEIBOVICH – 5/6/2010
SUPREME COURT NOMINATION/POLITICS
NY Times: Marking Off the Course to the Supreme Court
SHERYL GAY STOLBERG – 5/7/2010
Washington Post: Immaculate misconception and the Supreme Court
Joseph J. Ellis – 5/7/2010
Reuters: Republican would back Garland for Supreme Court
Thomas Ferraro – 5/6/2010
FOX News/Row 2 Seat 4: As Supreme Court Decision Looms, GOP Senator Blasts Obama Over “Core Constitutional Values”
Dominique Pastre – 5/6/2010Read more…
Friday Media Summary
SCOTUS NOMINATION REPORTING
NY Times/The Caucus: A Brisk First Round on Supreme Court Search
SHERYL GAY STOLBERG – 4/22/2010
USA Today: Likely candidates to replace Supreme Court Justice Stevens
Joan Biskupic – 4/22/2010
SCOTUS NOMINATION COMMENTARY
SCOTUS NOMINATION/POLITICS
Wall Street Journal: Democrats Aim to Tap Populist Anger in High-Court Fight
JESS BRAVIN – 4/23/2010
USA Today/The Oval: Obama does phone work on Supreme Court pick
David Jackson – 4/21/2010
Dallas Morning News: Obama calls Cornyn about Supreme Court choice
TODD J. GILLMAN – 4/23/2010
Participation High in NC Public-Finance Program
North Carolina became the first state, in 2002, to provide full public financing for judicial campaigns. This year, all 12 candidates in state judicial elections have stated their intention to participate in the public financing program, according to an article in Mountain Xpress, based in Asheville, N.C.
Kathleen Balogh, president of the League of Women Voters of North Carolina, lauded North Carolina’s 2002 Judicial Campaign Reform Act and said the law has inspired other states. West Virginia recently adopted a public financing pilot plan for state Supreme Court elections, following on the heels of North Carolina, New Mexico and Wisconsin.
You can learn more about public financing laws from Gavel Grab and by checking out Justice at Stake’s issues page on the topic.
No commentsTuesday Media Summary
NATIONAL SECURITY/COURTS
Main Justice: Waiting on the Trial of the Century
Joe Palazzolo – 3/29/2010
FOX News: More Guantanamo Detainees Are Returning to Terror Upon Release
Diane Macedo – 3/29/2010
Main Justice: Detainee Cases Expose Divisions on Counterterrorism Policy
Joe Palazzolo – 3/29/2010
Huffington Post: Liz Cheney, It’s Your Father’s Fault
Scott Payne – 3/29/2010
FrumForum: Unlocking Gitmo and Throwing Away the Key
Elise Cooper – 3/29/2010
CITIZENS UNITED/CAMPAIGN FINANCE
FOX News: Money Has the Right to Talk
Hans von Spakovsky and Robert Gordon, Jr. – 3/29/2010
Judges On Merit: Justice Brought to You By Your Corporate Sponsors
Susan – 3/29/2010
HEALTHCARE REFORM/COURTS
Columbus Dispatch: Ohio won’t join states’ suit over health reform
James Nash – 3/30/2010
W. Va. Law May Face Suit; AP Cites Justice at Stake
Opponents of campaign finance laws are rattling their legal sabers in West Virginia, suggesting in an Associated Press article that they may sue to overturn the state’s new public-financing law for state Supreme Court candidates. A similar challenge is being mounted against a Wisconsin’s law enacted last year.
The West Virginia law provides up to $550,000 to candidates who participate in the voluntary program, with additional “rescue” money available if a candidate’s opponents exceed a certain spending level.
The law was passed in part because of public revulsion over the state’s 2004 Supreme Court election, in which a coal executive spent $3 million to elect a new justice while his company appealed a $50 million jury award. According to the Center for Competitive Politics, public financing discriminates against candidates who choose not to take part, although the article doesn’t make clear exactly how.
As noted by Charles Hall, a Justice at Stake spokesman quoted in the article, a similar public financing law in North Carolina was unanimously upheld by the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which also oversees West Virginia. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal that used similar grounds to those being cited by the Center for Competitive Politics.
“They’re trying to take a limited set of circumstances, and stretch it into a broad principle that overturns more than 30 years of federal court rulings,” Hall said. “They are a long way from the finish line.”
For the full article, click here. To learn more about public finance measures in West Virginia and Wisconsin, click here. To see a poll showing strong public support in West Virginia for public financing of Supreme Court elections, Â click here.
No comments
