Panel OKs public financing of court elections
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin Supreme Court campaigns would be publicly funded under a bill approved by the Legislature's budget committee on Tuesday.
Supporters say the so-called "impartial justice" proposal will lessen the impact of deep-pocketed private interests in Supreme Court campaigns. Opponents argue that the idea will stifle debate and substitute public money to make up the difference.
The proposal passed the committee 11-4 with Democrats in favor and Republicans against. The Democratic-controlled Legislature is expected to pass it Thursday.
Under the proposal, Supreme Court elections would be paid for through a voluntary income tax checkoff and from the general fund.
It's estimated that each Supreme Court election could cost taxpayers about $3.5 million.
Nov 3, 2009 at 9:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bad call...
Nov 3, 2009 at 8:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Understood. That's after their first term.
Getting elected to KEEP ones' job is is a different animal altogether than having marginally qualified and/or incompetent individuals elected to the post initially.
It would be a huge improvement.
Nov 3, 2009 at 8:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Where they have merit selection, the Judges must face the voters to keep their jobs. Again, an election.
Nov 3, 2009 at 7:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Two words....Merit selection.
Nov 3, 2009 at 6:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Your candidate may be the best one, but if he/she doesn`t get the money they lose. The fairest way to do it is to have election funding limits, each candidate with the same amount, then let the one with the best ideas win, not the one with the biggest checkbook.
Nov 3, 2009 at 5:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
If you don't research the candidates, and vote for the best one for you, then you can't blame big money contributors. The only person you can blame is yourself. We don't need this law at all.
Nov 3, 2009 at 4:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Others are pushing term limits as a way to lessen corruption and influence peddling, but all that does is change the recipient, not solve the problem.
Nov 3, 2009 at 4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
I agree -- many other countries have publicly-financed elections and there are other entities in the US where this is the case. Under current Supreme Court rulings political donations at the federal level are protected by the First Amendment, so this will probably be challenged. Look for an organization funded by the Wisconsin Manufacturers Council to be out there with a name like "Protecting Public Integrity Wisconsin" or some such.
Nov 3, 2009 at 12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
All elections should be this way. Take the direct contributions away from the candidate, lessen the corruption and influence peddling.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.