Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Quick remap update
Next Post: After vote on nominees is stalled, Sen. Tracy warns that state could be without a legislative inspector general soon
Posted in:
* From the synopsis of Senate Floor Amendment 1 to HB716, the new elections omnibus bill…
In provisions concerning limitations on campaign contributions for a candidate political committee for a candidate seeking nomination to the Supreme Court, Appellate Court, or Circuit Court, provides that the political committee may not accept contributions from any group that is not required by law to disclose the identity of its contributors or accept contributions from any out-of-state source.
Provides that “contribution” includes expenditures made by any person in concert or cooperation with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, his or her designated committee, or their agents and the financing by any person of the dissemination, distribution, or republication, in whole or in part, of any broadcast or any written, graphic, or other form of campaign materials prepared by the candidate, his or her campaign committee, or their designated agents. Prohibits the making and accepting of anonymous contributions.
This is an obvious dig at Ken Griffin and folks like him as we prepare for the Supreme Court races. But those dark money groups and out-of-staters could still do independent expenditures.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 2:17 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Quick remap update
Next Post: After vote on nominees is stalled, Sen. Tracy warns that state could be without a legislative inspector general soon
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This is overreach by the General Assembly, and I do not know how it would be legal to ban out of state contributions.
For judicial candidates, especially Circuit Court candidates, it is already extremely difficult to raise money. Judicial candidates already are not permitted to solicit campaign contributions themselves. Now you are going to tell them that any friends and family that live out of state would be prohibited for making contributions to their campaign? This is bad policy on so many levels, and to me, it seems like an arbitrary limitation on the First Amendment rights of those affected.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 2:28 pm
== This is an obvious dig at ==
My first thought was Tom Devore and his planned run for the appellate seat downstate.
Ken Griffin already has plenty of legal ways to make contributions.
Devore on the other hand has only recently setup quite a unique network of contacts spread across states to solicit donations from. Many of those contacts then acted as local fundraisers to collect the funds for and pay what he was charging them on a per case basis.
This rule would directly prohibit those groups from being turned into unofficial fundraising groups for his run for the appellate court seat.
Even a cursory glance at his social media pages makes it is quite clear he is already blurring those lines between his legal practice, and his opining on state issues, for the purpose of helping him in his upcoming election.
In looking closer I am curious about one thing, if it only applies to those seeking a nomination outside of an election, or also applies to those seeking office through election as well. Elections and nominations are two different ways to acquire a seat on the court. The current wording only mentions those seeking nomination, and in that case wouldn’t apply to the upcoming elections for those seats. But I’ll admit I haven’t read the entire omnibus bill yet.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 2:37 pm
Require broadcasters who air independent expenditure ads to give the opponent equal air time, for free.
Comment by Thomas Paine Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 2:45 pm
-Require broadcasters who air independent expenditure ads to give the opponent equal air time, for free.- That requires the FCC to reinstate the fairness doctrine.
Comment by AnonymousFool Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 2:48 pm
Can you say “unconstitutional?” Sure, I knew you could.
Comment by Captain Obvious Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 2:48 pm
This is likely unconstitutional. Yet it addresses a real problem — the problem that judges hold non-political offices, but must win political elections.
Merit selection has fallen away as a political issue in the last 30 years. But the appointment of judges from lists cleared by nonpartisan selection panels (while not perfect) is the only solution to many of the problems of our judiciary.
Comment by Keyrock Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 2:50 pm
=Can you say “unconstitutional?” Sure, I knew you could.=
Please remember that you posted that going forward.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 3:32 pm
How about “Judges who receive money from lawyers or litigants who appear before them must recuse themselves on the basis of conflict of interest.”
Comment by lake county democrat Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 3:32 pm
=== How about “Judges who receive money from lawyers or litigants who appear before them must recuse themselves on the basis of conflict of interest.” ===
They are already required to do so under the Judicial Canons.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 3:41 pm
Hannibal - either that’s not true or it’s being flagrantly violated. Sandra Day O’Connor made this point (as have others) - law firms contribute to judicial campaigns all the time.
Comment by lake county democrat Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 4:25 pm
No way the out-of-state prohibition is constitutional
Comment by Yeah… Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 4:39 pm
I wasn’t aware the Democrats were at such a money disadvantage they have to deny their opponents money.
Couldn’t help but notice this only applies to judicial races. Why not all races? Oh wait, Nevermind.
Comment by Just Me 2 Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 5:46 pm