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?