Today's P-I reports: "Political spending cap may backfire"
The Legislature has acted to close a campaign-finance law loophole by limiting the stream of special-interest money into judicial elections, but it may have only rerouted the flow, not slowed it.Well, duh --
As I've written many times, as long as politicians (including judges) have enormous influence over spending and regulation, interest groups have an enormous motivation to acquire influence with the politicians. Campaign finance limits and other "reforms" are designed to make it harder for interest groups to purchase influence. Even the supporters of campaign "reform" agree:
"It'll change the dynamic," said Charlie Wiggins, a Bainbridge Island lawyer and president of the Washington chapter of the American Judicature Society, who lobbied in favor of the bill, as did the Washington State Bar Association. "I think it will make it more difficult (for a candidate) to have a coordinated campaign" with special interests.Yes, but "more difficult" is another way of saying "more expensive". As sincere as some campaign reformers are in their belief that limiting the size of contributions will limit the role of big money and make the political system more competitive, the reality is that increasing the barriers and the price of obtaining influence will only serve to protect incumbents and those who have the greatest concentration of wealth.
"In a study for a judicial-selection reform coalition, Wiggins wrote that Cruise Specialists sent "a chilling message to judges who must decide cases involving wealthy litigants. They illustrate the possibility that a disgruntled litigant can target a sitting judge. ... Judges must be insulated from the threat of overwhelming campaign contributions to their opponent as a method of revenge.""
It is because of the threat of retaliation by the deep-pocketed interests who benefit financially from Sound Transit that Owens, Alexander and Chambers perverted our judicial system in how they handled the Sheehan case.
They failed to address the vehicle owners' main claim -- that mileage based taxes are what the two tax grants at issue require, not car tab taxes.
The so-called contentions that the court instead analyzes in the Sheehan case are complete fictions.
Here is a link to discussions about the Sheehan case:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/forum/boards/viewtopic.asp?topicid=74290&page=75
Here is a link to the vehicle owners' brifing:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/forum/boards/viewtopic.asp?topicid=80829
As can be plainly seen, the vehicle owners do not argue what the court says they argue. The postings on March 5-9 detail the lies in the opinion.
Posted by: Chevrolet on March 23, 2006 11:17 AMWhen your dear GW got selected president in 2000, the NRA was giddy over their influence. Even said they own the white house.
Lovely.
Posted by: LovinUSa on March 23, 2006 11:28 AMYour analogy stinks. The office of POTSA is a partisan one, and partisan politicians are supposed to look out for their constituents’ interests in particular.
Judges on the other hand take oaths to be impartial. The fact that rich litigants can buy outcomes in Washington courts is an abomination. That violates fundamental tenets of American society.
No litigant around here is richer than Sound Transit. It has about one billion in cash at this time. I'd say those politicians in black robes are more concerned with being reelected for six more years than they are remedying a widespread injustice.