Thus, public financing does not cap spending nor guarantee a level playing
field in judicial elections and is not a solution to issue - oriented campaigns.
This report is the fourth in a series on different policies that could help mitigate the influence of corporate campaign
cash in judicial elections.
Well, our friends in the great Republic to the South seem to have an even bigger problem: the rapidly growing influence of big
money in judicial elections for state supreme courts.
And, importantly, the role that «tort reform» and the highly partisan industry lobby group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have played
in judicial elections for years.
Merit selection, endorsed by the ABA in 1937, helps remove the partisan politics
inherent in a judicial election and the excesses of campaign rhetoric and cash.
The Sixth Circuit, applying strict scrutiny, affirmed the lower court's conclusion that the party affiliation and solicitations clauses violated the First Amendment as neither was narrowly tailored to serve the state's compelling interests in having an unbiased judiciary and to decrease reliance on political
parties in judicial elections.
The Justices» questions generally fall along anticipated ideological divides (e.g., the conservative Justices seem to support uninhibited solicitation of campaign contributions and the liberal Justices seem to support more
regulation in judicial elections).
A great article out this week in Mother Jones, discusses something we've been talking about, and scared of, for years... money and
influence in judicial elections.
These rulings have fundamentally reshaped how political campaigns are waged and have increased the influence of big money
in judicial elections.