Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: CTBA: FY12 deficit cut in half by news taxes, but shortfall remains
Next Post: Reader Comments Closed for Remainder of the Weekend
Posted in:
Posted by Barton Lorimor
Citizens United opened the door for campaign contributions. To counteract that law, the State of Arizona implemented a policy where if a candidates is running against major corporate donations it would make up the difference to the opponent. That policy is subject of oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court Monday…
As conservative Ninth Circuit judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote in his concurring opinion rejecting constitutional arguments against the Arizona system, “there is no First Amendment right to make one’s opponent speak less, nor is there a First Amendment right to prohibit the government from subsidizing one’s opponent, especially when the same subsidy is available to the challenger if the challenger accepts the same terms as his opponent.” Similarly, Charles Fried, a solicitor general in the Reagan administration, argued in an amicus brief that it is the wealthy candidates and interest groups who “in reality are seeking to restrict speech.”
So you’d think that the challengers to the Arizona law would have a hard time in front of a court that declared, in Citizens United, that “it is our law and tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule.” But it doesn’t seem likely the court will see it that way. The court showed its hand back in June, when it took the unusual step of suspending the matching-funds portion of the Arizona law in the middle of the election, before it even agreed to hear the case, during a time when candidates (such as Gov. Jan Brewer) had already made the decision to opt in to the public financing system. A key factor that the court considers in deciding whether to grant such extraordinary relief is the likelihood that it is going to strike down the law at issue.
Bill Freivogel, director of the SIUC School of Journalism and a member of the Missouri Bar Association, wrote an analysis about the Roberts Court and its voting trends in First Amendment cases. It’s a good read if you have the time.
Meanwhile, the Illinois high court issued another opinion regarding a candidate’s residency…
The Will County case of Goodman v Ward centered on an election dispute and the specifics of election code. Will County’s election board allowed a candidate for judge,Chris Ward, to stay on the ballot despite the fact that Ward did not live in the judicial district when filing the election paperwork. A Will County judge eventually ordered Ward off the ballot.
The high court sternly reminded officials in Will County that when state law says a candidate has to live in the district they wish to represent, they have to live in that district.
The justices also offered another reminder that only a court, not an election board, can interpret Illinois’ election code.
Of course no mention of residency requirements is any fun without talking about Chicago’s mayor-elect…
Mayor-elect Rahm Emanuel asked some of Chicago’s largest nonprofit foundations to pay for his transition, and they agreed to the tune of $200,000. […]
Emanuel submitted grant proposals to the MacArthur, Joyce, McCormick and Spencer foundations because he did not want to solicit contributions from private donors, according to his spokesman.
A large part of the foundation money will pay the salaries of some staff holdovers from Emanuel’s mayoral campaign. The result is that nonprofit money is being used to keep part of Emanuel’s political team intact until he perhaps chooses to put those staffers on the city payroll after being sworn in.
And here’s a big campaign round-up…
* Sun-Times: Reduce City Council, but don’t cut in half
* Brown: Would cutting City Council in half work?
* Pantagraph: Approve Senate special election, but limit costs
* 36th Ward race: Condos, clubby atmosphere, experience all campaign fodder
*Bitter runoff in 50th Ward
* Feds to Monitor Aldermanic Runoff Elections
* Chicago Heights candidate sues opponent, claims he called him a drug dealer
* Chicago Heights election problems prompt call to close early voting site
* Southtown: Early voting not the culprit
* Highland Park’s mayoral race heats up
* Four battle for city council’s District 2 seat
* Waukegan 2nd Ward
* Independent challenges Moisio in Waukegan 3rd Ward
* Voters to elect Figueroa successor in Waukegan’s 4th Ward
* RR Star: Vote yes on tax to keep rebuilding Rockford roads
* Incumbents in Machesney trustee races have battles
* Galesburg candidates focus on growth
* Three seeking Danville Ward 5 alderman seat
* Five vie for Germantown board
* Ward 6 candidates hope to lure businesses downtown
* Ward 8 field features non-elected political veterans
* Mayoral candidates try to combat misconceptions
* Residents defend Fairview mayor against ‘political witch-hunt’ over sex convention
* Recap: Carbondale Mayoral Interviews
* Arbor district confronts mayoral candidates
* Recap: Marion Mayoral Interviews
posted by Rich Miller
Saturday, Mar 26, 11 @ 4:46 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: CTBA: FY12 deficit cut in half by news taxes, but shortfall remains
Next Post: Reader Comments Closed for Remainder of the Weekend
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.