Saturday, February 18, 2006

Candidates Spending Limits Irrelevant In County Court At Law #3

The GOP race for County Court At Law #3 has begun an interesting debate over campaign contributions for judicial races.

The State Judicial Fairness Act requires candidates running for a Judicial Seat to spend no more than $200,000 on their campaign. The candidates must sign a paper to comply or not to comply -- (THAT IS THE QUESTION!!)).

Candidate Attorney Grady James refused the limits (they are voluntary), saying that it violated his first amendment right of 'freedom of speech'. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is a 'restriction on freedom of speech' to limit overall campaign spending.

His two opponents, Patrice MacDonald and Michael Valdez, agreed to the limits, but are now free, as well, to spend as much as they desire!

So what if a person wants to spend his own money on his OWN campaign!?

Of course he wants to win and I wish him the best of luck!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For more information on this please click on the following links:

The HCN Newspaper Online:
"Our View: voluntary judicial campaign spending limits -- well-intended, but unworkable and ultimately irrelevant in Court-at-Law 3 race."
http://www.hcnonline.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16127340&BRD=1574&PAG=461&dept_id=542100&rfi=6

Speech or not: Applying Election Law Strict Scrutiny to Campaign Finance Regulations:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=slv2-frz&ei=UTF-8&p=U.S.+Supreme+Court+has+ruled+that+limits+on+overall+campaign+spending+amount+to+a+restriction+on+freedom+of+speech

NHBA - Bar Journal Issue:
http://www.nhbar.org/publications/archives/display-journal-issue.asp?id=161

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home