Skip to main content

On Tuesday, Feb. 2nd, in the state of Washington, the Supreme Court Fair Elections bill (HB 1738) was voted "Do Pass" (in favor) by the House State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee.

Members approving: Rep. Sam Hunt (chair; D-22nd LD); Reps. Sherry Appleton (D-23rd), Mark Miloscia (D-31st), Dennis Flannigan (D-27th), and Christopher Hurst (D-31st).

Voting no: Reps. Mike Armstrong (R-12th), David Taylor (R-15th), and Gary Alexander (R-20th).

Which begs the question: Why do Republicans oppose fair elections?

This bill seeks to provide public financing for Supreme Court campaigns in Washington State.  

INTENT. The intent of this act is to protect the fairness of elections for the highest court in Washington state - the supreme court. Doing so will foster the public's trust in the integrity and independence of the court in the face of increasingly large sums of money raised and spent by special interest groups. That flood of money threatens the impartiality, independence, and credibility of our judiciary. To maintain public confidence in the judiciary, we must prevent not only corruption, but the appearance of corruption, for the judiciary is the one branch of government that must be uniquely impartial, independent, and unbiased in order to best serve the residents of Washington. It would be destructive for our democracy to allow the court to become influenced by large amounts of money, and for our citizens to think that judicial decisions are influenced by those large amounts of money. This act is necessary to ensure that our highest courts continue to be unbiased and insulated from special interests.

After the Supreme Court of the United States ruling that opened the floodgates to foreign interests meddling in our political process, you'd think the "national security" party would be all over putting an end to corporate interference with our judicial system.

Well, no, not really. They just use that meme for show. Their actions speak louder than words and there evidentally isn't a gutter too low for them to sink into if it keeps their pipeline to legalized corporate bribery open.

How else will their corporate masters be able to influence Supreme Court rulings if we don't allow them to buy our justices?

Originally posted to Pen on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 11:05 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (8+ / 0-)

    "Take whatever you can, Steal whatever you can't take, Kill what you can't steal so no one else can have it." - Republican Business Philosophy

    by Pen on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 11:05:31 PM PST

    •  Because when both sides get a fair airing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Democrats win. Democrats just naturally support more of what people agree with. Look: it's the same reason the Republicans don't want fair reapportionment in Ohio after this year's census. In the last couple of elections, more people have voted statewide for a Democrat for our state senate than a Republican. Want to guess what the breakdown of parties is? It's 2-1 Republican! For years, the state congressional districts were so gerrymandered that, despite the fact that by 2006, more people voted for a Democrat for congress than a Republican, our congressional delegation was 12-6 Republican (Now, thanks to hard work and some strong Democratic years, it's 10-8 Democrat in SPITE of gerrymandering, so they're really scared).

      There is a lot of conversation right now in Ohio around changing the way we elect our Supreme Court, which is 7-0 Republican. In 2006, right before the election, the NY Times ran an enormous front-page story tagging one of our justices as corrupt beyond corrupt — they discovered that he decided with his campaign donors 91% of the time — and he had an enormous campaign fund. Sadly, he was reelected. He was running against a much more highly rated judge, but that judge decided to run a no-money campaign to make a point, which wasn't a good idea (I'm not sure his campaign slogan "No Money from No Body" was a good idea either, but that's just me being the grammar police.)

      Stop Rob "The Job Outsourcer" Portman. Jennifer Brunner for Senate

      by anastasia p on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 06:07:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  err... Because they want to win? n/t (3+ / 0-)
  •  Because if Democrats turn out they win, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anastasia p, QuestionAuthority

    so they try lower the turnout by any means possible. They don't think they have a fair chance of winning on an even playing field.

    "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

    by sceptical observer on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 11:22:25 PM PST

    •  That was the story of Ohio in 2004 (2+ / 0-)

      Not Diebold touchscreen machines; they weren't in widespread use here then. What they did was deploy every means possible to makes sure that voters were unable to vote in urban and lower income areas and on liberal college campuses like Oberlin and Kenyon. That was the story behind the radical unallocation of the machines, the 4, 5 and even 12-hour lines (the latter at Kenyon, where classes were called off and tests postponed in an attempt by administration to let the kids vote). While we do know there was some counting chicanery, we will never know how many votes John Kerry lost because of working people who couldn't afford to wait half the day to vote. My county — Cuyahoga (Cleveland) – was one of the worst hit. Everyone's been  so busy screaming about the machines and the recount and the shady counts in southwest Ohio that we've never gotten to the bottom of why that was the only election in memory when there were lines like that. I doubt it's a coincidence that the chairman of our county board of elections at the time was Bob Bennett, who was simultaneously head of the state Republican party. And of course, our secretary of state at the time Ken Blackwell was state chair of the Bush Cheney Reelection committee. Could they have been in cahoots? You decide.

      Stop Rob "The Job Outsourcer" Portman. Jennifer Brunner for Senate

      by anastasia p on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 06:14:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Because they can't win on their merits. eom (0+ / 0-)

    "Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all" Andrew Carnegie

    by pantherq on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 11:22:28 PM PST

  •  Because they love America (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pen, Wom Bat

    They tortured people to get false confessions to justify invading Iraq.

    by yet another liberal on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 11:40:05 PM PST

  •  Because they will lose. . . (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pen, Calamity Jean, QuestionAuthority

    . . .with fair elections. That is what the "Michael Connel incident" was all about.

    •  Not much to that story (0+ / 0-)

      It's a lovely conspiracy theory that Karl Rove had Connell's plane tampered with because he was about to testify and blow the lid on the 2004 elections in Ohio. But the real chicanery was not high-tech and was much closer to home.

      Stop Rob "The Job Outsourcer" Portman. Jennifer Brunner for Senate

      by anastasia p on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 06:20:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bullshit (0+ / 0-)

        I followed this story from the beginning. Gush took Ohio by just one county. And it's a FACT that the votes for that county went, via phone lines, to the offices of Michael Connel in another state and seemed to change from the polling data. Can you think of a legitimate reason for sending the vote totals to the Republican key IT guy???!!

        Prior to his plane dropping from the sky, he had aborted tow previous flying days because he thought his plane was tampered with.

        I think the only reason Obama won was because they got this guy into court the day before the election, siganlling clearly that they were watching him and that the RNC wasn't going to be able to use the "Bradley effect" to steal vote totals. (remember how the effect was so touted on the news (especially Fox) in the weeks before the election?)

        Even Connels sisters think he was murdered.

      •  wingnut (1+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:

        you don't fool me.

  •  Washingont? Is that anywhere near Orenog? (0+ / 0-)

    When an old man dies, a library burns down. --African proverb

    by Wom Bat on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:54:50 AM PST

  •  Nice intentions.. but you left out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    an important part of the "Intent".

    Therefore, this act, the judicial election reform act, introduces a voluntary pilot project to provide an alternative source of financing candidates for the Washington supreme court who demonstrate public support and voluntarily accept strict fundraising and spending limits.

    Voluntary?  Seems kinda stupid to me.

    Why didn't Obama take the high road of public finances when he had a chance??  Answer: because he's not stupid and wanted to win... and it was "voluntary".

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

    by Skeptical Bastard on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:11:30 AM PST

    •  Yeah, I know (0+ / 0-)

      stupid bullshit incrementalism.

      The Dems:  Always afraid to do the right thing, always doing the half assed thing instead.

      "Take whatever you can, Steal whatever you can't take, Kill what you can't steal so no one else can have it." - Republican Business Philosophy

      by Pen on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 12:48:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You know (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    only rich white men should vote. And vote they will the interests of the rich white men.

    Any questions class?

  •  w stealing elections was no exception (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm guessing repubs steal most of their elections. True there are a lot of teabaggers just not enough to win elections is my guess.

    The Bush Administration already made a mistake with Bernanke, and the Obama Administration appears desperate to follow suit. -kos

    by vintage clothes on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 05:42:46 AM PST

  •  Because this is class war, and their class (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pen, QuestionAuthority

    is on top. They will hold on to power by any means necessary.

  •  because if elections were fair, the GOP would (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    signalcamp, QuestionAuthority

    never win again.

    How else do you get people to vote against their interests?

    "Politics isn't about big money or power games; it's about the improvement of people's lives" ~ The Late Sen. Paul Wellstone

    by MinistryOfTruth on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 06:07:33 AM PST

  •  Are you serious? (0+ / 0-)

    I suppose then that Obama oppose's fair elections as well.  After all he opted out of public financing in favor of rasing money privately.  I for one am in favor of mandatory public financing for ALL federal positions with no opt out allowed, but to claim that those who are opposed to it do oppose fair elections is ludicrous.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site