The Age of Democracy is now. And that means if we do nothing we will find our democracy gone or a version of it that is a facsimile of what the founding fathers had in mind when the wrote the flawed but the foundation of our country.
We have challenges being landed in communities across the country, from school board elections to voting rights in one after another poor town or city or state to the aging equipment and the long term problems/costs associated with delayed or debated results, the reality is that the 1% speak loudly and more elaborately than anyone in the 99%. Even in matters that have nothing to do with the community where they live or work. They are the Gladys Kravitz of America.
As more people run away from the hurricane into cities and towns where jobs lie or at least one's they believe will pay them more and offer more opportunity they leave communities behind that are sheer pushovers for folks like these to use their towns and cities as trials and tests for further ways to erode this foundation. It is as if one bitch of a storm caused by global warming hit the beach and it was akin to Normandy only this D day is the day democracy died.
This is just one more way they will do so - money over guns.
Outside Spending by Special Interests Floods Judicial Elections at Record Percentage, Report Finds
October 29, 2015
The Brennan Center for Justice
Once Rare, Multi-Million Dollar Judicial Races Have Become Commonplace Across U.S.
Special-interest groups accounted for a record-high 29 percent of total spending in state judicial races in the 2013-14 election cycle, according to a new report by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Justice at Stake, and the National Institute on Money in State Politics.
Offering a detailed analysis of the latest state Supreme Court campaign trends, Bankrolling the Bench: The New Politics of Judicial Elections 2013-14 shows how special-interest spending has impacted the composition of state courts nationwide — and calls into question how campaign spending may affect courts’ decisions.
The study finds that multi-million dollar judicial races, once unheard of, are now common across the country. Social welfare organizations and other outside groups are also increasingly spending on court races, the report notes, spurred in part by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010. The cycle also saw a notable development in a highly public initiative by a national group, the Republican State Leadership Committee, which spent nearly $3.4 million across judicial races in five states.
“As special-interest groups continue to pump money into judicial races, Americans are rightfully questioning whether campaign cash influences courtroom decisions,” said Alicia Bannon, senior counsel in the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice and co-author of Bankrolling the Bench.
“Fifteen years of data makes clear that high-cost and politicized judicial elections are not going away. It’s time for states to rethink how they select judges and to adopt common-sense solutions such as public financing and stronger rules for when judges must step aside from cases.
Without real policy change, fair and impartial justice in America is at risk.”
“The hard numbers make it clear: when judges have to run for election, there is a risk that the concerns of ordinary people will take a back seat to the special interests and politicians who are trying to reshape courts to fit their agendas,” said Scott Greytak, Justice at Stake policy counsel and research analyst and lead author of the report.
“This turns how we choose our judges into a political circus that is bad for our courts and bad for democracy. The good news is that we can fix this. We can work toward real reforms like merit selection, to help get money and politics out of the process, so judges can focus on their real work instead of raising money and fending off political attacks, and so all of us can have confidence that our courts are fair and impartial.”
While overall election spending was slightly lower than in other recent cycles due to a high number of uncontested races, more than $34.5 million was spent on state Supreme Court elections in a total of 19 states — much of it coming from special interests.
Outside spending by interest groups in judicial races rose to a record-setting 29 percent of total spending, or $10.1 million, in 2013-14, topping the previous record of 27 percent in 2011-12. When outside spending by political parties was also included, total outside dollars accounted for 40 percent of total judicial election spending, a record for a non-presidential election cycle.
Among the report’s other key findings:
The highest spenders overwhelmingly supported Republican and conservative candidates. Most of the top spenders targeting judicial elections supported conservative candidates, including nearly $3.4 million spent by the Republican State Leadership Committee. Democratic supporters also spent substantially in a few key races. Two of the top three highest spenders in the election cycle supported a Democratic candidate (in Michigan) or opposed a Republican candidate (in Illinois).
The airwaves around judicial elections were dominated by ads, many of them harsh, about criminal justice issues. “Tough on crime” was the most common campaign theme, as a record 56 percent of TV ad spots discussed the criminal justice records of judges and candidates.
Average per-seat spending on judicial elections has surged in states with retention (i.e, yes-or-no) elections.
The average for 2009-14 represents a tenfold increase over the average for the previous eight years. Negative advertising in the most recent retention elections jumped to 46 percent of all ads, compared to 10 percent in the prior cycle.
Lawyers and business interests spent big on judicial elections.
Business interests — many of whom frequently appear in state court — and lawyers and lobbyists were the largest donors to Supreme Court candidates, collectively responsible for 63 percent of all donations. Business groups and plaintiffs’ lawyers were also major contributors to several of the highest-spending outside groups.