The Seattle Times keeps campaigning to protect its favored position in influencing judicial races. Yesterday's editorial endorses a speech-suppressing bill in the legislature that would cap contributions to judicial campaigns.
Nationwide, money has been flooding into state appellate-court races, especially around tort reform and environmental issues. As one of only four states with elected judges and no campaign limits on their races, Washington is vulnerable ... This worthy bill protects the integrity of these important public offices.What a bunch of self-serving nonsense. The bill only protects those interests who have an advantage under the proposed set of rules -- government employee unions, for example, which use their mandatory dues to organize for campaigns and where every local affiliate can donate up to the maximum. Newspapers also enjoy disproportionate influence in political campaigns that would only be enhanced by limiting the financial contributions of others. The Times complains about the money that went into the successful campaign of Justice James Johnson. But of course the economic value of the Times editorials endorsing his opponent Mary Kay Becker were not reported as contributions, nor should they have been. So its only fair that, those who don't own their own newspaper or have a protected skim of tax dollars to use in campaigns should also be free to educate the public about their favored candidates without discriminatory limitations.
I hope the Senate sees through the disingenous and self-serving agenda of those who wish to limit campaign contributions and rejects HB 1226. But If this bill passes and contributions are capped, I would humbly suggest that those who still subscribe to the Seattle Times might cancel their subscriptions and use the money they save to donate to the State Supreme Court candidates of their choice.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 24, 2006 12:04 PM | Email ThisOur SCOWS needs more justices like Johnson. But honestly, if you are looking to endorsements from the Seattle Times to tell you how to vote, you probably shouldn't be voting.
Posted by: Palouse on February 24, 2006 12:18 PMWhy shouldn't the judicial races have the same rules applied to them?
Posted by: Erik on February 24, 2006 12:28 PMContribution limits do nothing to lessen the underlying demand for political influence. They only create artificial rules for procuring influence and have the perverse effect of raising the cost of influence, which favors established moneyed interests to the detriment of everybody else.
I doubt it's political feasible at this point to undo existing contribution limits, but there's at least a plausible argument for having limits on partisan offices, but not for non-partisan offices, such as judges. Parties provide branding and organization to support their candidates. Non-partisan candidates who lack party backing need to raise more money to acquire the same kind of assets available to partisan candidates.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on February 24, 2006 12:43 PMMake it real simple:
No laws for donations.
Full immediate disclosure of all donations.
The candidate would then have to defend huge contribution form donors.
Posted by: JCM on February 24, 2006 12:44 PMCiting questionable decisions of others as a reason to act equally dumb is really poor logic - unless herd mentality is considered the highest intellectual virtue.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on February 24, 2006 03:52 PMCiting questionable decisions of others as a reason to act equally dumb is really poor logic - unless herd mentality is considered the highest intellectual virtue.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on February 24, 2006 03:52 PMJudges don't have a party affiliation on the ballot, but the conservative leaning judges are more likely to be exposed by MSM, as exemplified by the Times editiorial. What a bunch of holy crap !
But newspapers claim quasi-governmental powers, anyway. The New York Times believes that it has the right to decide what official secrets are kept, and the Seattle Times believes that it should have a near monopoly on endorsements.
There are probably some journalists who realize just how arrogant this appears to those not in the profession, but thee don't seem to be many of them.
Posted by: Jim Miller on February 25, 2006 09:32 AMLook at the Sheehan case, where the Sound Transit and Seattle Popular Monorail Authority MVET’s were challenged. If there were limits on contributions, the case would have gone the other way.
Many, many people would contribute to the campaign of a justice who rules in a way that means hundreds of dollars of illegal taxes are returned to them. Citizens would quite rightly support a justice who stands up for their rights against overreaching governments.
But the justices now operate in an unlimited contribution political environment. Stomping on the rights of citizens pays off for the justices because the financial beneficiaries of ST and SMP will be making huge contributions.
Because of contribution limits, the financial downside to the incumbents of perverting justice in that case was small, whereas the potential financial upside of their pandering is large.
Now the incentive for these justices is to provide undue succor to local governments and those who benefit financially from them. The legitimate interests of even very large groups of citizens pale in comparison (from the perspective of the grandees facing political challengers).
Posted by: Bob L. on February 26, 2006 08:35 AMOn the other hand, if there were contribution limits, a couple of hundred bucks from several small business owners and property owners like me could effectively negate a PAC's contribution. The contributors to that PAC of course could make their separate contributions, but it evens a playing field that now is tilted against the individual in Washington.
Contribution limits would shift the balance of power at least some amount away from rich vested interests, correct? The power of many individuals would become more pronounced, I believe. This kind of limits should be expected to also raise the interest level of individuals in judicial campaigns, because their contributions could cancel out an insurance company's contributions, for example.
It comes down to a policy choice: do we want to live in a society where the will of many people can overcome the will of a few rich entities, or do we want to continue to live in a society where a few rich entities wield a vastly disproportionate influence on who the judges are?