Big Bucks in the Superior Court Race

Hey, you forgot to list me among Stein contibutors. ;-)

Is Ruby powerful OR famous? which one?

Tom,

First, let me begin to answer your question "does all this money bother you?" with a totally irrelevant question/statement. Ruby, you're on your honeymoon! Enjoy it and stop reading OP.org. It's in good hands with Tom and will be here when you get back. Enjoy your honeymoon - hopefully it will be your one and only, God willing.

Now, onto the question you asked Tom: No, the money doesn't bother me. Given the relative affluence of this community, I don't think the numbers you've given are inappropriate for a elected position that has so much potential power/effect. As I've said previously on this site, I see nothing wrong with citizens supportingly their candidates of choice as long as there are no expectations that such support will bring favored treatment in official civil proceedings.

Nice selective reading of the contributor lists, Tom! And who cares if a contributor is "famous" or not? (Smiley face, smiley face, however the hell you do that icon thingy.)

You forgot to mention all the lawyers (all of whom on the lists of the two candidates who pledged not to take money from lawyers who might be heard by them. Oopsy.

You forgot to list me on Judge Baddour's list. Or a host of other progressives who may not be famous enough for you.

I would never vote for Adam Stein, not if _he_ paid _me_. He can't serve the full term, only 2 1/2 years of an 8-year term. I value my vote and that job more than to vote for someone running a vanity campaign. Especially a man running a vanity campaign and buying his way into office. Adam Stein has singlehandedly ruined judicial races in this district for the forseeable future by raising so much money and spending so much of his own money. (He's spent nearly as much of his own money as Judge Anderson has raised and spent from the community.)

The cost of running for that office has just quadrupled and more, thanks to Adam Stein. The size of Adam Stein's war chest was well-known at the beginning of this race. He's forced Judge Baddour to try to keep up just to hold onto his job, a job that he's done extremely well, earning him praise. Unlike Adam Stein, Judge Baddour has no other job, or extensive personal wealth, to fall back on. He's all in, to use a poker term, and committed to serving this district for years to come.

Throw off a young, smart, proven, progressive jurist with a long future ahead of him to elect a man who can barely serve a third of the term before he heads off to have clambakes in Maine? Are you kidding?

No, Adam Stein has done this district no favors by raising all this money and running this slick campaign of his, to answer your question.

Oops, there's a typo in there. That sentence should read, "You forgot to mention all the lawyers who show up on the lists of the two candidates who pledged not to take money from lawyers who might be heard by them."

Is anyone aware of any US jurisdiction that has successfully been able to control campaign spending? Every endeavor that I'm aware of is so fraught with loopholes that a committee/candidate can easily get around the existing restrictions.

Just like the illogic of trying to protect our flag by outlawing flag burning, there is either free speech or there isn't. Spending for political purposes is exercising free speech.

What's the solution? Candidate can only "buy" an election if a person's vote is for sale. An informed, involved and attentive electorate should be smart enough to vote for the candidates that don't offend their sense of right and wrong. Idealistic I know, but the alternative of limiting free speech is a much worse in my opinion. And as Will Raymond is fond of pointing out, transparency is the key.

Now that that's solved, how do we get more people to vote? :-)

Mandatory voting--like they have in Australia--$20 fine if you don't vote--doctor's excuses accepted?

That, or we can just all accept that it's bread-and-circuses time...

melanie

Oh we can do what Arizona is proposing... $1,000,000 to a lucky voter

True campaign reform would come about when all contributions would be limited to $50 or $100 per candidate, per year, for both individuals and PACs. Then, I would have as much donating power for an individual candidate as the Pork PAC or Bill Gates.

But Robert, contributions are only part of the issue. As long as the Pork Pac can spend any ammount that it wants to advance an issue or a candidate, the power will not be equal.

There's a couple of issues present for me...

First, even if contributions were limited to $50, that would add up quickly for an entire ballot. It's more fair, but not entirely fair.

Second, Judges seem different than politicians to me. I think I'd rather they be appointed. A panel seeking to appoint based on merit, or even a politician making appointments, just feels better to me than a full on political campaign.

Third, there really seems to be a losing battle in governing contributions. The more you govern, the more (it seems) that you create advantages for those that seek to push the envelope. I would like to see more efforts made in alternative strategies.

Campaign speech has always been an issue we've had to deal with. However, the constitutional framers had to deal with inequities from those who could afford a printing press or the services of a printing press. Today the playing field is far more level, at least with simply getting a message out. I think the blame for present day inequities are to be squarely placed upon ourselves. We let the money ruin these campaigns.

I agree that more votes is a better solution. I agree that more informed votes is a better solution.

I think that it's really great that candidates tell us who gave them money and how much. Of course, knowing this information and using it to help make a decision is another story.

As long as there are so many legal ways to spend on behalf of a candidate and using money that will never show up on a candidate's filing, we are only adding apples to oranges to pears and then dividing by bananas.

The fundamental flaw is that some will always believe that certain people who make any contribution to a candidate will receive a return on their "investment" that is shady at best and illegal at worst. How often is that really the case?

Let's get Bunkey Morgan in on this one...