Most Recent Posts

Politics

Money Mixes Up Missouri Circuit-Court Race

Election 2010

Report: Too Much Money Going To State Court Races

News

Supreme Court Strikes Down Pillar Of Campaign Finance Limits

With New Campaign Finance Rules, You Can't Really Follow The Money

The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday in a case testing whether states, in the name of preserving judicial impartiality, may bar judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions.

There was a time when judicial elections were a pretty tame affair, with relatively little money spent, and candidates in most states limited in how they could campaign. Not anymore.

In 2002, the Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 vote struck down state rules that barred judicial candidates from campaigning about legal issues that might come before them. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the deciding vote in the case, later would say she regretted that vote. But she has retired, and a new, more aggressive conservative Supreme Court majority repeatedly has struck down rules — long in place — to limit campaign fundraising for legislative and executive candidates.

Now comes the first challenge to limits specifically aimed at fundraising by judicial candidates.

Thirty-nine states elect some or all of their judges, and most bar all judicial candidates from soliciting campaign contributions personally. Tuesday's case tests that personal soliciting ban in a case from Florida, where judicial election fundraising is supposed to be done by candidate committees, instead of the candidates themselves.

Lanell Williams-Yulee ran for the trial bench in Hillsborough County, Fla. in 2009. She sent out a signed letter to potential contributors seeking money for her campaign and posted a signed appeal on her website. She said she misunderstood the rule. She was reprimanded and fined for the violation.

Williams-Yulee then challenged the personal solicitation ban as a violation of her First Amendment right to free speech, appealing her case all the way to the Supreme Court.

In the high court today, lawyers representing the Florida Bar will defend the personal solicitation ban as necessary to protect two important constitutional values: the impartiality and integrity of the courts, and also the constitutional right to due process of law guaranteed to those who seek justice in court.

Several former chief justices of the Florida Supreme Court have filed briefs supporting the personal solicitation ban, among them Harry Lee Anstead.

"The image I see is a judge in their robes, holding their hand out to a lawyer or to a private company, and cash being passed from one hand to the other," says Anstead.

Not so, says Andrew Pincus, the lawyer for Williams-Yulee: "This is a mass solicitation via a post on an Internet site and via a letter."

While challenging the entire personal solicitation ban, Pincus is seeking to parse it, contending there is a difference between a mass mailing or an internet post, or even a speech to a large group. After all, he notes, contributions are publicly disclosed.

"It's a phony protection," he maintains, "because the judge is going to know who gave and who didn't. So in a way, the prohibition creates an illusion of insulation when there isn't any real insulation."

Gregory Coleman, president of the Florida Bar, counters that it's not so easy to "divide up" a ban on personal solicitation. Either you have one or you don't, and allowing a judicial candidate to personally ask for campaign funds from those who come before the court, he says, "does not look right, it doesn't smell right, it doesn't feel right."

Indeed, how would you draw the line, asks Barry Richard, representing the Florida Bar in the Supreme Court. When does a mailing become a "mass mailing?" And when would an audience be big enough that you legally could make an in-person appeal?

Former chief justice Anstead says that striking down any portion of the personal solicitation ban would be disastrous in Florida, which is just one generation removed from the worst judicial corruption scandal in the state's history — state Supreme Court justices fixing cases on behalf of campaign donors, and even permitting a lobbyist to ghost-write the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court in a public utilities case. In the end, four of seven justices were forced to resign and the state adopted a raft of reforms, including the ban on personal solicitation.

Those challenging the ban, however, contend that making judicial candidates do their fundraising through committees stacks the deck for those with connections.

"That really favors the legal establishment," argues Pincus. "If you're someone who is not a well-connected lawyer, you may not have well-connected people to put on a committee to do the soliciting for you. You may have to send out letters yourself, and why should that be prohibited?"

The Florida Bar replies that there is nothing in the rule that prevents candidates from raising money – they're just prevented from doing it personally.

Pincus has another argument: if the purpose is to prevent corruption, then why are candidates for legislative and executive office permitted to personally solicit campaign contributions?

Because they're different, replies the bar association's Barry Richard.

"They're policymakers and people vote for them and contribute money to them because of the policies that they stand for," says Richard. "In the case of the judicial candidate you have an entirely different concern, which is a requirement for impartiality."

Finally, those challenging the personal solicitation ban argue that if a donation does cause either a conflict or the appearance of impropriety, judges can recuse themselves. In practice however, most experts say that is a nonstarter, because recusal decisions largely are left to individual judges and can cause all kinds of unanticipated problems.

"Trust me, in rural communities they're all getting their contributions from the same pool," says Florida Bar President Coleman. "So you could theoretically run through three, four, five, six judges before you could find one that the lawyer did not contribute to. So it could create, literally, chaos within the system."

Just what role does money play in judicial elections and decisionmaking? Polls show astonishing majorities of the public — as high as 70 or 80 percent or more — think money influences judges. And scholars have found that there is a "strong" relationship between campaign contributions and judicial voting, according to Tracey George, a law and political science professor at Vanderbilt University. She is among a group of scholars who filed a brief surveying the data.

"Money biases — whether consciously or subconsciously — the recipient's subsequent actions," George says. Indeed, she notes, "donors have given to judges who face no opposition, so these donors clearly think there's an impact."

Of course, a ban on personal solicitation may not solve that problem.

"It's true that it is not a perfect way of dealing with it," concedes former chief justice Anstead.

"We're limited to what we can do because of the great value we place in the First Amendment," he explains. "But at least we're doing something."

The question now is whether the Supreme Court thinks that "something" is constitutional, or whether judicial candidates soon will be just like all other candidates — scrambling for campaign cash, in person.

judicial elections

campaign finance

Florida

Supreme Court

The solar energy business is growing fast, thanks in part to a steep drop in panel prices.

The Solar Energy Industries Association reports that prices dropped by more than half since 2010. But the industry's future looks a little hazy. Generous government subsidies expire soon and the price for natural gas — a competitor that's also used to generate electricity — keeps dropping.

For now, though, the solar business is booming and the industry is hiring. More than 31,000 solar jobs were added in 2014, according to The Solar Foundation.

Among those who became solar industry workers last year is Charlie Wilde, 54, of Denver. He finished a training program at Solar Energy International in the spring, got certified and then worked temp jobs as an installer.

"It's really hard work, especially in the summertime, when you're on those hot roofs," Wilde says.

He sees a bright future in solar panels and is starting his own business called Ecology Solar.

Energy

Solar Advocates Fight Utilities Over Grid Access

U.S.

After Solyndra Loss, U.S. Energy Loan Program Turning A Profit

Business

Should Homeowners With Solar Panels Pay To Maintain Electrical Grid?

"I'll be targeting people in my neighborhood of Denver, Colo., and then expand out from there as the business grows," Wilde says.

Experienced installers can earn a good wage of about $22 per hour, says Andrea Luecke, president and executive director of The Solar Foundation.

"People in sales positions are making about $40 an hour," she says. "So these are good jobs. These are highly desirable jobs, and jobs that are helping to positively contribute to the U.S. economy."

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't track solar industry employment, but it cites figures from Luecke's foundation.

"We have nearly 174,000 solar jobs in the U.S., which is 22 percent more than last year and 86 percent more than when we first started to track jobs in 2010," Luecke says.

And she says there is plenty of room for more growth, because solar makes up less than 1 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. today. Two-thirds of the country's power still comes from coal and natural gas, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Luecke says the solar industry expects to add another 36,000 jobs this year, but after that is a big question mark. Solar companies still rely on a 30 percent federal tax credit to compete with more established fossil fuels. Unless Congress extends the credit, it will end in December 2016.

solar

environment

solar power

solar panels

On the one hand, having the just-elected senator from Iowa, Joni Ernst, deliver the Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union address next week makes perfect sense.

On the other hand, you have to wonder why anyone would want the job. As often as not, the opportunity to speak right after the president does has been the kiss of death for aspiring politicians — especially in the GOP during the Obama years.

But let's start with the positives. As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put it, the newly sworn-in Ernst is "the perfect choice" to address the nation on behalf of her party. She is a woman from a swing state that matters in presidential politics, a new face in the new Senate majority.

She is also the first woman to represent Iowa in Congress for either party, the daughter of an Iowa farm family and a former colonel in the Iowa National Guard who served in Iraq. In November she won easily, rising from the state legislature to the seat that Democrat Tom Harkin had held for 30 years.

Ernst was a long shot a year ago, stuck in the pack of other Republican wannabes. Then she aired a TV ad in which she smilingly talked about castrating hogs in her early days on the farm. In case you missed the portent, in the ad Ernst said she'd know how to "cut pork" in Washington and "make 'em squeal."

Soon the Ernst campaign was the talk of Iowa and the national political class that keeps a weather eye on the Hawkeye State. Late in the season, Ernst had some rough weeks and ran afoul of some in the Iowa media. In the closing weeks, she skipped editorial board meetings, even at the state's powerful Des Moines Register. She often sails past reporters now in the Capitol, smiling but answering no queries.

Even this week, at the Republican retreat in Hershey, Pa., where her SOTU role was announced, she did not take questions at a press conference.

No matter. The SOTU speaker is expected to give a prepared rebuttal to the president, and not to take questions before, during or after. It is an ideal role for anyone trying to elevate his or her profile in national politics.

Except that, well, sometimes it doesn't work out so well, especially for the GOP. In the years Bill Clinton was president, a total of eight different Republicans took up the cudgels post-SOTU. Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas did it twice en route to challenging Clinton's re-election in 1996 (a challenge that ended Dole's career). New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, U.S. Sens. Trent Lott of Mississippi, Susan Collins of Maine and William Frist of Tennessee all took their turns at the task. So did House members Jennifer Dunn, R-Wash., and Steve Largent, R-Okla. Of this group, only Collins remains in politics. Lott left the Senate late in 2007, by which time the other six were already out of office.

i i

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal delivered the GOP response in 2009 from the governor's mansion in Baton Rouge, La. AP hide caption

itoggle caption AP

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal delivered the GOP response in 2009 from the governor's mansion in Baton Rouge, La.

AP

The Republican Party's luck has scarcely been much better in the Obama years. The first Republican anointed to respond to President Obama in a similar circumstance was Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal in January 2009. Jindal popped up to the camera in the vestibule of his gubernatorial mansion in Baton Rouge, manging to seem impertinent, immature and self-important all at the same time. Widely panned, he receded into a secondary role in his party's national affairs.

The following year, 2010, the party turned to another — this one just elected in Virginia two months earlier. A good-looking and youthful conservative, Bob McDonnell had people talking about his future place on a national ticket. Five years later, his one term as governor finished, McDonnell is appealing his recent conviction on charges of corruption in office (and his sentence of two years in federal prison).

Things got better for the SOTU responders in 2011, when the GOP turned to Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Ryan was just taking over as the chairman of the House Budget Committee following the party's smashing victories in November 2010. Ryan gave a well-received speech about budget priorities. Not long after, he brought forth a budget that slashed federal programs for lower-income groups and emphasized tax cuts and other incentives for investment.

Lavishly praised by fiscal and social conservatives, it has never been approved by the Senate and has provided plentiful ammunition for Democratic attack ads. But Ryan himself went on to the 2012 vice presidential nomination and is now chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. While he took himself out of the 2016 presidential sweepstakes, he is barely in his mid-40s and bids fair to be part of the national conversation for a long time.

i i

In this screen grab, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio takes a sip of water during his Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union in 2013. AP hide caption

itoggle caption AP

In this screen grab, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio takes a sip of water during his Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union in 2013.

AP

Since Ryan, those privileged to give the SOTU response have not reaped a commensurate benefit. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels got the job in 2012, but only after he had already decided not to run for president that year. He has since left politics altogether.

In 2013, the big responsibility fell to freshman Sen. Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants who had cut a swath through Florida politics. Rubio was able to do his response in both English and Spanish but was ill at ease, swigging water from a plastic bottle as he faced the camera. Rubio was soon enmeshed in the political crossfire over immigration, and he is no longer even the strongest presidential prospect in his home state (a distinction that now goes to former Gov. Jeb Bush).

Hats off to Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the No. 4 Republican in the House and the highest-ranking woman in her party in Congress. Her speech following the State of the Union in 2014 was a model of personal appeal and modest policy pronouncements. It did her considerable personal good while doing her party no harm.

This year, Ernst might well aspire to have the scoreboard read the same after her SOTU response.

When you're president of the United States, what you say about the economy matters, because it isn't just about numbers and widgets; It's about people's lives and hopes. The health of the economy is intertwined with the national psyche.

On Tuesday, when President Obama delivers his State of the Union address, he will talk about the economy, something that in the past he's struggled to describe in a way that resonated with the American people.

"I know that for many Americans watching right now," Obama said, addressing a joint session of Congress in 2009, "the state of our economy is a concern that rises above all others."

That February, Obama's first in office, the nation was in the throes of the worst recession in generations. He used the word "crisis" 11 times. The month before, the economy had shed nearly 800,000 jobs, and the situation would get worse before it got better.

"You don't need to hear another list of statistics to know our economy is in crisis, because you live it every day," he said. "It's the worry you wake up with and the source of sleepless nights."

Obama To Call For Hike In Capital Gains Tax In State Of The Union Jan. 17, 2015

In that first address, Obama and his speechwriters figured the American people weren't simply looking to him for sympathy and an accounting of economic doom. Obama had been elected on a message of hope, and he needed to offer some.

It's All Politics

5 Things We Learned From The President's Speech

Why Isn't Obama's Speech A State Of The Union? Feb. 23, 2009

"Tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before," he said.

But since then, Obama has had a hard time hitting the right note when talking about the economy. In that first speech, he was still an outsider. But in the years that followed, it was his economy.

In 2010, he reframed, saying the worst of the storm had passed.

"And after two years of recession, the economy is growing again," he said. "Retirement funds have started to gain back some of their value, businesses are beginning to invest again."

But just barely. The recession was technically over, but there was huge disconnect between Obama's words and what Americans were experiencing. One in 10 people still couldn't find work.

The story was the same in 2011, when an optimistic Obama told an unconvinced America, "The stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again."

Year after year, Obama described green shoots and good news that economists say were real, but many people watching at home simply didn't feel. Each year, Republicans, in their official response, had no problem finding very real pain to highlight.

The contrast between Obama's assessment and the GOP response was never starker than in 2012.

"The state of our union is getting stronger, and we've come too far to turn back now," he said.

Then-Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels gave this GOP response: "The president did not cause the economic and fiscal crises that continue in America tonight, but he was elected to fix them, and he cannot claim that the last three years have done anything but make them worse."

The economy wasn't actually worse: The unemployment rate was no longer rising. It was coming down, and that trend has continued. In 2014, U.S. businesses added more jobs than in any year since the go-go '90s.

When Obama stands at the front of the House chamber and talks up the economy this Tuesday, polls, consumer confidence surveys and $2-a-gallon gas all indicate the American public is more likely to agree with his assessment.