Redstate

John McCain's head is going to explode!

Groups like WRTL must continue to face potential legal sanctions for criticizing elected officials, and must await further guidance from the SCOTUS on the limits of permissible political speech under BCRA.  Don't pop those champagne corks yet.

But as Allison wrote - "as-applied" challenges live on!!

To those who support the concept of candidates for judicial positions "personally soliciting campaign funds", what is the protection against quid pro quo in the judicial system?  Recusal?  And if so, what are the proper standards for recusal?  Also, what sort of review procedures exist for recusal, particularly at the State Supreme Court level (which presumably is the final arbiter of state law)?

Please treat this as a serious question, as I do understand the importance of the First Amendment issue, but also note that the corruption issue doesn't die even when the First Amendment issue trumps.

How will this effect the case of "VT REPUBLICAN STATE COMM. V. SORRELL, WILLIAM H., ET AL."?

Also what was today's vote on the court?

and the answer is the same as for politicians who solicit funds for their elections.  Vote them out if think there is a QPQ.

It's my opinion, FWIW, that the best cleanser for campaign contributions is sunlight.  Much better than limits and regulations that you don't even have be extraordinarily smart to get around.  If all contributions, hard and soft, were immediately published with full internet access it would be much easier to know who owns who.

Either as a remedial nature or in general?

I've argued to the contrary in the context of campaign finance reform generally, before, so I'm obviously biased.  

But without sticking to one's rhetorical/theoretical guns, think about it.  It's a state judge election.  A state judge will hear hundreds of cases a year, with money often filtered through PACs in order to hide the true source.  There are thousands of state judges in the country.  To the degree precdent plays a major role, it'll be hard to see exactly how far the benefit of a particular case extends.

It seems that at minimum, any charge of corruption can be at least nominally defended (see Tip O'Neill, Bill Clinton, Tom DeLay, etc.).  Given that most voters will be concerned about "the issues of the day" when it comes to judges - Crime, Corporate malfeasance, Civil Rights, Victim's Rights, etc. - how much will transparency play a role in stopping corruption, particularly ex ante (Often, judicial elections are for long terms in order to insulate them from politics)?

If you're interested in my original argument, you can find it at http://www.law.uconn.edu/journals/cpilj/current_issue.htm.  It's the criticism of mandatory disclosure laws.

Ian Ayres (yes, a lefty) of Stanford Law School has written extensively on the use of mandatory nondisclosure rules for judges, and I agree with him on the bulk of his arguments,

nm

Just so people know the VT Case deals with strict campaign finance limits on both what people and parties can raise, but also spend.

I wish I did have access to LEXIS...

Will transparency stop corruption, of course not.  Any more that MF will.  Do I think it will do a better job, yes, without reservation.

My problem with CFR, and most reform, is that the people doing the "reforming" have an ox to gore.  CFR in any form ever put forth is nothing more that protection for incumbents at best, and a clear (at least to me) violation of the 1st Amendment at worst.

Everybody is all wound up about corruption this week.  Being an old guy, my comment for them - on both sides of the aisle - is get over it.  Corruption is not a function of the "system", it's a function of being human.  Some among us are just easily corruptible.  Those people will find a way to be corrupted and the will find someone to feed their corruption.  You can't stop that, you can only watch vigilantly.

The other problem in this finger pointing exercise, is who gets to define the terms.  People on the left think that Conservatives are bought and paid for because they take money from people like Right to Life organizations or corporations and then vote to support RTL causes and to restrict regulation of business.  People on the right know that Liberals are bought and paid for because they take money from Right to Abortion advocates and from labor unions and then vote to support abortion on demand and to restrict businesses in their labor practices.  Gee, maybe those organizations give money to those candidates because the candidates represent their views without regard to the contribution.

I said I was a proponent of "sunlight".  I didn't expand on that at the time, I will now.  (Cheering, confetti, fireworks display, cheerleaders cheering)  To me sunlight is more than just a public list of contributors and contributions.  It is a change (NOT a reform) of the rules of Congress so that "earmarks" are no longer allowed.  When money is appropriated, it should be appropriated in a very public way.  

I don't necessarily have a problem throwing away some money so that individuals Members can look good at home, I just want to limit the amount so they have to practice the fine art of prioritization.  Pick a number, give each Member $5MM.  Let 'em spend it on bridges to nowhere, footpaths, basketball courts, statues of themselves, I don't care.  Let's just practice good triage and stop the bleeding now.

I would consider scrapping the tax code in favor of a flat tax (or even a "fair tax") would be the ultimate application sunlight.  The tax code runs to volumes because Members write exemptions for their constituents.  Require the tax code to be no more than two pages of 12 point type with one inch margins.  You will stem lots of corruption.

Bottom line, the more complicated things are made, the more corruptable they are.  Simple things are difficult to corrupt because they tend to be easy to understand.  Real world example would be dealing with an addict.  If you give them complicated rules with lots of grey area they will own your soul in about an hour.  You may be smarter, but they are better manipulators.  Simple rules with clear consequences will defeat the addiction.  Members of Congress are addicted to power.  It's important that we understand that and treat them appropriately.

I could go on, but I see the cheerleaders are wearing out and the fireworks display is over and I just heard my soapbox crack.  Anyway, I think you probably get the idea, feel free to take a whack at me.  :>)

Can I get that in English?!

For all us non-legaleaze people, what does this mean?  Groups can run issue-ads before an election but not candidate-ads?  Please explain for us retards that didn't go to law school!!! :-D

I would consider scrapping the tax code in favor of a flat tax (or even a "fair tax") would be the ultimate application sunlight.  The tax code runs to volumes because Members write exemptions for their constituents.  Require the tax code to be no more than two pages of 12 point type with one inch margins.  You will stem lots of corruption.

Tax code simplification is needed, but is also impossible with an income based system. The rules for determining a business entitity's income will always be a whole lot more complicated than 2 pages. Maybe, just maybe, you could get it down to 100 pages. Of course if you eliminate the income tax, you solve that problem.

A line item veto would also be a very good thing.

1.  Just because the Supreme Court held that the campaign finance statute (BCRA) is constitutional in general, doesn't prevent groups from bringing lawsuits challenging it as being unconstitutional as applied to their particular case.
   
2.  Specifically, the Wisconsin Right to Life case raises the question of whether BCRA is unconstitutional as to ads criticizing elected officials on a specific issue close to an election.

of corporations change and eliminate corporate taxes.  Basically, corporations exist to shield individuals from business liability.  However, people use the tax code to incorporate their "small businesses" and essentially write off their lives.  (I'm in the mortgage business, I deal with this every day.)

I am fundamentally opposed to a VAT or national sales tax for lots of reasons I won't beat here.  I would admit that I would grudgingly support the "fair tax" if that was the only way we could see the IRS go the way of the WPA.  Even I have priorities.

With respect to the line item veto, I think you would be shocked at how infrequently it would be used.  Washington is all about building constituencies and exercising a LIV for the bridge to nowhere would undercut the President's ability to call on Alaska's representatives when he needs them for critical pieces of legislation.  Also, the "good-old-Member" coalition would likely vote to override anyway.  I'm a cynic of the first order when it comes to DC.

I would prefer rules changes that require spending measures to be voted up or down in the sunshine - no more earmarks.  Also, a rule that requires all parts of a Bill to relate to the subject matter of the bill.  That would irritate John McCain, but oh well.

Your point about the LIV is a good one. It wouldn't really do much about wasteful spending. If an executive overuses his veto, the legislative body will start reflexively overriding every veto, anyway. People who didn't even vote for the provision in the first place start to vote to override. This happened here when Ventura was governor. He was very veto happy and usually overridden.

I don't agree with the related to subject matter rule. There is far too much room for interpretation there. I could live with it if it were just a rule, but if it was a law, this would be a very bad thing. Then you would have judges deciding what is related and what is not. I also think it is already far too hard to get things through the Senate with the fillibuster. This provision would make it even harder.

but that was basically a slap at earmarks.