Archive for the 'Public Financing' Category
A bill filed in West Virginia’s House would create the first-in-the-nation public financing program for judicial elections at the trial level, according to Gavel to Gavel, a publication of the National Center for State Courts.
Sen. Mike Romano of Harrison County said recently, according to West Virginia Public Broadcasting, “The time has come to look at public financing for our judges. It’s worked well in our Supreme Court and it does take some of the influence of big money out of the most important office in our state.” West Virginia has a public financing program for state Supreme Court elections. Read more
Members of the West Virginia House of Delegates rejected on Tuesday an amendment to expand a pilot program for the public financing of state Supreme Court elections to include circuit court elections.
“Without this amendment, we will leave in place the greatest threat to impartiality there is,” Del. Tim Manchin, the sponsor, said, according to the Charleston Gazette. He was alluding to judges feeling beholden to big campaign donors.
Arguing against the amendment was Del. Frank Deem. “I want to know who’s giving money to the candidates, so I know where that candidate is coming from,” Deem said. The amendment was defeated on a 67-31 vote. It was offered to amend a bill providing for nonpartisan, instead of partisan, judicial elections; the bill was to come up for a final vote in the chamber on Wednesday.
The rules for New Mexico’s system of public campaign financing for appellate court candidates and for the Public Regulation Commission ought to be revised, an Albuquerque Journal editorial says.
The editorial takes issue with rules that permit public financing of unopposed candidates, saying taxpayers end up financing unopposed candidates’ “free rides.” It focuses on publicly financed campaigns for two unopposed Public Regulation Commission candidates this year.
The editorial mentions that for the first time this year, an appellate court candidate won election after having received public financing through the comparatively new program, adopted for appellate courts in 2008 (see Gavel Grab for details about the election). In this context, the editorial notes that the winning judge favors elimination of public financing for candidates who are unopposed.
The savings from such a reform could go to expand the public financing program to candidates for district court judgeships, the editorial says, adding, “Not a bad idea. Do we really want our judges taking money from lawyers and others who may someday appear before them?”
Judge Miles Hanisee, who won election to the New Mexico Court of Appeals on Nov. 4, has a distinction: He is the first appellate judge elected with public financing since the state launched the program for statewide judicial candidates in 2008.
And for people concerned about money influencing politics, Thomas J. Cole wrote in an Albuquerque Journal column, this “was a patch of high ground in an election flooded with campaign cash from private interests.”
Both Hanisee and his opponent, Kerry Kiernan, obtained public financing under the program. Hanisee already was serving on the Court of Appeals because he was appointed to it by Gov. Susana Martinez. He earlier ran for election to the same court, accepting public financing for his campaign, and was defeated.
“It keeps lawyers’ money out of judicial races,” Hanisee said about public financing. “To me, that is the main thing you are trying to accomplish.”
The 2014 North Carolina Supreme Court election is unprecedented in the past 15 years for the raw political power and record big money involved, including more than $3 million raised by the candidates for four seats, writes an opinion columnist who urges a return to public financing of judicial campaigns.
“This is happening across the country,” adds Tim White in his Fayetteville Observer column. “Tens of millions of dollars are being poured into court contests as political influence groups try to buy judicial seats. And the very same people doing the pouring may someday later show up before the judges they helped buy. Those judges are human, and the possibility of money turning the tide of a crucial case is a chilling specter.”
North Carolina’s legislature killed the state’s public financing program for judicial campaigns last year. Now, White says, PAC money and advocacy groups’ “dark money” are flowing into the election contest, and the case for restoring public Read more
As this year’s election for the North Carolina Supreme Court begins warming up, more editorial boards are speaking out to mourn the legislature’s killing the state’s pioneering public financing program for judicial elections. A recent study found that the program had a “powerful impact” (see Gavel Grab) while it was operative.
A Rocky Mount Telegram editorial said, “Public financing for judicial contests offered a bit of sensibility in the face of mudslinging. Now, it appears, that breath of sanity is gone as well.”
A Wilmington Star-News editorial said it was a good program, now gone: “But the Honorables decided instead to return to the old system, in which judicial candidates solicit donations from private donors, many of whom have a vested interest in court decisions. Honest judges are not influenced by such donations, at least not consciously, but even the appearance of a conflict of interest can taint public perception of an important judicial ruling.” Read moreNo comments
A rightward march by North Carolina’s legislature in 2013, including its killing a popular and successful program for public financing of judicial elections, continues to capture national news media attention and analysis.
The public financing program was a pioneering reform to protect courts from special interest influence, and it became a model for other states.
A Moyers and Co. report on what it called the “North Carolina takeover” as a result of a Republican supermajority in the legislature and a Republican governor attributed the death of public financing of judicial elections in significant part to opposition by Art Pope, the state budget director. He has been described as the “architect of the conservative takeover.” Read moreNo comments
Not only will the stakes be high when four justices on the North Carolina Supreme Court are expected to seek reelection this year, but the legislature’s rewriting some laws could also contribute to runaway spending on the court elections.
A (Greensboro) News-Record editorial raises this specter in casting a dubious eye on the new laws and their impact. The headline accompanying the editorial? “Big bucks judges.”
The legislature eliminated a pioneering public financing program for judicial elections and raised individual limits on donations to judicial campaigns from $1,000 to $5,000 per election. About the changes, the editorial asks:
“Why did the legislature open to door to greater big-money influence in judicial races? Why were these changes tucked into a sweeping election reform bill highlighted by a voter ID requirement that drew almost all the attention? Read more
In April, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez vetoed legislation intended to update a voluntary system of public financing for elections of appellate court judges (see Gavel Grab). Now advocates for public financing say they are making headway in addressing the governor’s concerns about the legislation’s constitutionality.
“We have answered her concerns, and are working to gain her support,” Viki Harrison, executive director for Common Cause New Mexico and Tam Doan, research director for Public Campaign, write in an Albuquerque Journal op-ed. Public Campaign and the national Common Cause organization are Justice at Stake partner groups.
The vetoed legislation was drafted in response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett, from 2011. The high court struck down a provision in Arizona’s law that furnished extra taxpayer dollars to participating candidates when privately funded foes or independent groups spent more. It was called a “trigger funds” provision.
The legislation was intended to set up a small donor matching system. Under it, candidates who participated would have gotten an initial public financing grant and after that, would have received a 4-1 match for donations of up to $100.No comments
A prominent West Virginia attorney says the public has lost its faith in fair and impartial courts, but “[i]t doesn’t have to be that way,” Justice at Stake Executive Director Bert Brandenburg writes in a Charleston Gazette op-ed.
Brandenburg spotlights West Virginia’s adoption this year of a permanent law for the public financing of judicial elections, after he mentions an earlier instance of runaway campaign spending that “gave the courts a black eye in West Virginia and beyond” and resulted in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Caperton v. Massey:
“Public financing isn’t perfect, and it doesn’t fix every problem with judicial elections. But it does at least one very important thing: It allows judicial candidates to opt in to a system that protects them from having to solicit money from the same lawyers, businesses and other parties who may appear before them in court. Read more