Wis. high court adopts rule allowing donations
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court has given final approval to ethics rules that say judges can hear cases involving their biggest campaign supporters.
The court voted 4-3 to approve the rules that say campaign donations and other spending by parties do not require judges to step aside from cases. The rules were proposed by two powerful Wisconsin business groups.
The court had voted last year to approve the rules, but adopted minor revisions Thursday and an order that describes the rationale for the changes.
The order says campaign contributions are a fundamental part of judicial elections that should not, by themselves, disqualify judges.
The court's conservative majority rejected attempts to amend the rules, or delay them for further study.
Jan 22, 2010 at 6:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
The state would be required to finance all candidates regardless of how they ruled. Are you talking about the Scopes Trial? ;-)
Jan 22, 2010 at 5:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
The cost of "justice" in Wisconsin continues to price the average Joe out of the market.
Jan 22, 2010 at 1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
RetiredAirForce: "Using the same logic, if the state financed all elections; when a case evolving the state goes before the judges is there favoritism for the state?"...
My answer is, "YES" :)
Jan 22, 2010 at 1:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
OMG.. How blatantly Crooked is this! I told everyone that Politicians set the pace for the Country when it comes to ethics.. And here we see that in full swing. I wonder who drew up this new law.. could it have been Corporate lawyers?!
Politicians don't care how their perceived by constituents, & now Judges are showing their disdain for constituents.
I don't think Judges are paying attention to the awakening of constituents happening in the Country. I hope everyone remembers this come election time.
Jan 22, 2010 at 11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Using the same logic, if the state financed all elections; when a case evolving the state goes before the judges is there favoritism for the state?
Jan 22, 2010 at 9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Judges should not be accepting campaign contributions from anyone. Nor should they sell tickets to a "Judges Ball". The taxpayers would be better served if the state financed the campaigns. The taxpayers end up paying for it all anyway.
Jan 22, 2010 at 7:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
If the Court had required judges to step aside when campaign contributors came before them, then the whole court would have had to step aside if someone contributed to every judge's campaign. Or, if someone anticipated going before the court, they could keep unfriendly judges off of their case by contributing to their campaigns.
Jan 22, 2010 at 7:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
So,in other words, if you're a corporation that may at some point be involved in a lawsuit, you'd better cough up some big bucks into all of these judges "campaign funds" . . . or at least the four who voted for this. Sounds to me as if they've just legalized bribery.
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.