SCOTUS - That Citizens United thing doesn't apply to Judges

[Jimmy Higgins]

In a 5-4 ruling (Roberts swinging, not Kennedy), the Supreme Court ruled that while a donator's free speech right exists for politicians, it doesn't for judges.

"Judges are not politicians, even when they come to the bench by way of the ballot," Roberts wrote on behalf of the court, adding that a "state's decision to elect its judiciary does not compel it to treat judicial candidates like campaigners for political office."

And therein, Roberts manages to split a hair four times. But here is the best part.

States have an interest in assuring people that judges "will apply the law without fear or favor - and without having personally asked anyone for money," Roberts added.

Ok, so, lets just digest this for a second. Giving money to a judge means it will cause potential conflicts with ruling on law. But giving a politician money will in no way create a potential conflict in the creation of it?! The very law the Judge is supposed to rule on without worrying about money?

I do win the Roberts prize though. I did predict at some iteration of this web board that he could be Souter-ish. He has swung a few times to the left. The problem is, with these rulings, he appears to be a very inconsistent Chief Justice.

 

[laughing dog]

I think we should be grateful the SCOTUS got it right this time.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think we should be grateful the SCOTUS got it right this time.

That'd be the majority vote for SCOTUS.

 

[Trausti]

The full opinion is here for those interested: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1499_d18e.pdf

Analogizing this case to Citizen's United misunderstands the issue. The Florida Bar promulgated a judicial rule of conduct precluding judicial candidates from personally requesting campaign funds. It did not, however, prohibit others forming committees to solicit money in support of the candidacy. And it did not set a limit on the amount such committees could solicit. The observation that judges are not politicians is important. The practice of law is a regulated profession, and each state's respective supreme court acts as that regulator. It was the Florida Supreme Court, not any state or federal election agency, which reprimanded the plaintiff for sending out postcards seeking donations. There are many ethics rules that lawyers must abide by if they want to remain lawyers - rules not applicable to non-lawyers. The plaintiff here challenged the ethics rule as unconstitutional. But the supreme court determined that the state of Florida had a compelling state interest in narrowly limiting the plaintiff's first amendment rights. It is on this point that the dissent disagrees, nothing that it is unlikely that persons solicited would ever appear in the candidate's court. Citizen's United has little relevance here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That'd seem to fix the standing issue I had. IE how can a candidate complain about the people's right to donate money.

So this case means that laws that prevent a Judicial candidate from directly asking for money are legal, but Judicial seats are still up for sale.

I suppose nothing to see here then. Thanks.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am not too familiar with this system. Have they ever tried to outright ban political advertising or least limit the amount that can be spent on it? There must be some way to render political office less buyable and more based on merit and reason and argument (and pandering)... or is that just a democracy pipe dream?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I am not too familiar with this system. Have they ever tried to outright ban political advertising or least limit the amount that can be spent on it? There must be some way to render political office less buyable and more based on merit and reason and argument (and pandering)... or is that just a democracy pipe dream?

I suppose that public funding of election campaigns would help towards that, but this would run into the problem of who gets funding. If I say that I'm running for Congress, can I spend $20 on a newspaper ad spend the rest on "staffing" or the like?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I am not too familiar with this system. Have they ever tried to outright ban political advertising or least limit the amount that can be spent on it? There must be some way to render political office less buyable and more based on merit and reason and argument (and pandering)... or is that just a democracy pipe dream?

There were limits, SCOTUS ruled money is speech. Now we have Super PACs and candidates who just need a couple major donors. Granted, it isn't as if before Citizens United we had no outside influence in elections, but Citizens United just blew the dam.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I am not too familiar with this system. Have they ever tried to outright ban political advertising or least limit the amount that can be spent on it? There must be some way to render political office less buyable and more based on merit and reason and argument (and pandering)... or is that just a democracy pipe dream?

That system is called fascism. A democracy is based on the idea that the people have a right to talk about politics and voice their opinions. The system was designed to prevent that problem by limiting the amount of influence of the government had but that has been out the door the last 100 or so years.

 

[ksen]

Fascism is about banning/limiting political advertising?

 

[Rhea]

So asking people to support you = bad.
Having powerful friends who can do exactly the same = good.

So the dark horse candidate who is honorable and has great ideas but is not already well known and well connected is not someone to whom we want access to the donors provided.

This does not seem like a recipe for an impartial judgeship.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I am not too familiar with this system. Have they ever tried to outright ban political advertising or least limit the amount that can be spent on it? There must be some way to render political office less buyable and more based on merit and reason and argument (and pandering)... or is that just a democracy pipe dream?

That system is called fascism. A democracy is based on the idea that the people have a right to talk about politics and voice their opinions. The system was designed to prevent that problem by limiting the amount of influence of the government had but that has been out the door the last 100 or so years.

There is still that limit the spending part. Right now, our Democracy is available to the highest bidder.

 

[coloradoatheist]

That system is called fascism. A democracy is based on the idea that the people have a right to talk about politics and voice their opinions. The system was designed to prevent that problem by limiting the amount of influence of the government had but that has been out the door the last 100 or so years.

There is still that limit the spending part. Right now, our Democracy is available to the highest bidder.

No, the issue is that our country represents with 300 million people with a wide variety of interests with a country that is very split and the programs/decisions aren't always in favor of one group or another so we're upset with decisions that don't represent the issues we see and the solutions we want.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is still that limit the spending part. Right now, our Democracy is available to the highest bidder.

No, the issue is that our country represents with 300 million people with a wide variety of interests with a country that is very split and the programs/decisions aren't always in favor of one group or another so we're upset with decisions that don't represent the issues we see and the solutions we want.

That is so cute and such a naive, school child's view on Democracy in the US.

In reality, billionaires are close to singlehandedly funding Presidential campaigns, and not in the Ross Perot sort of way.

 

[fromderinside]

So political candidates can directly solicit millions from fat cats ..... ?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So political candidates can directly solicit millions from fat cats ..... ?

Nope. There are still some limits. A Super PAC can do whatever, but it can't be coordinated with the candidate... which makes so much fucking sense!

 

[fromderinside]

So political candidates can directly solicit millions from fat cats ..... ?

Nope. There are still some limits. A Super PAC can do whatever, but it can't be coordinated with the candidate... which makes so much fucking sense!

Look at the Judge decision. Seems to parrot other political processes. I'm thinking a story where none exists.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No, the issue is that our country represents with 300 million people with a wide variety of interests with a country that is very split and the programs/decisions aren't always in favor of one group or another so we're upset with decisions that don't represent the issues we see and the solutions we want.

That is so cute and such a naive, school child's view on Democracy in the US.

In reality, billionaires are close to singlehandedly funding Presidential campaigns, and not in the Ross Perot sort of way.

It's not billionaires, it's some large groups that have political power. The medical doctors lobby is a big lobby but it's not made of billionaires. The Koch brothers are the ones you are thinking of, but they don't have as much political sway as the left thinks they have. We have a deeply divided country and the parties are trying to convince the swing voters to come their way each election.

And if you would say a group has more power, it would be corporations, but they aren't the billionaires

 

[KeepTalking]

I am not too familiar with this system. Have they ever tried to outright ban political advertising or least limit the amount that can be spent on it? There must be some way to render political office less buyable and more based on merit and reason and argument (and pandering)... or is that just a democracy pipe dream?

I suppose that public funding of election campaigns would help towards that, but this would run into the problem of who gets funding. If I say that I'm running for Congress, can I spend $20 on a newspaper ad spend the rest on "staffing" or the like?

It didn't seem to be a problem when Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford both ran publicly financed campaigns in the '76 presidential election. I'm not sure how these issues were decided, but we can certainly just go with what worked then.