I think most people would be appalled, would not call this a First Amendment right, and would call it exactly what it was–buying judges for inflated prices.
Race for Pennsylvania Supreme Court Breaks Spending Record
- State Superior Court judge Christine Donohue, from right, state Superior Court Judge David Wecht, Philadelphia Judge Paul Panepinto, state Superior Court Judge Judith Olson, Adams County, Pa., Judge Michael George, Philadelphia Judge Kevin Dougherty and state Commonwealth Court Judge Anne Covey participate in a Pennsylvania Supreme Court debate.
- Associated Press
Spending in a seven-way race for seats on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has eclipsed $15.8 million, making it the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history,according to advocacy groups
****The previous national record of $15.19 million was set in the 2004 Illinois Supreme Court race between Lloyd Karmeier and Gordon Maag, according to an analysis of state disclosures by Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center for Justice, two groups that support limits on money in judicial elections.
The figures in the Pennsylvania race are likely to rise, as more records are filed, according to the groups.
Spending on judicial races has been building since the 1990s, when trial lawyers and business groups began trying to influence elections. Outside groups with broader political goals then joined in. The trend has accelerated since the Supreme Court struck down federal limits on corporate and union political spending in its 2010 Citizens United ruling.
Those who support lifting restrictions on campaign financing equate spending with free speech, while critics say loosening such restrictions gives moneyed interests outsize influence over elections and candidates.
Here’s how the spending in the Pennsylvania race breaks down, according to Justice at State and the Brennan Center for Justice:
- Christine Donohue (D) $1,923,910.52
- Kevin Dougherty (D) $3,853,205.51
- David N. Wecht (D) $2,880,604
- Anne Covey (R) $925,406.29
- Michael A. George (R) $861,623.60
- Judith Olson (R) $575,007.56
- Paul Panepinto (I) $234,000
- Six primary losers raised a total of $1,563,619.85
Thirty-eight states hold elections for their highest courts. They are a mix of partisan and nonpartisan contested races involving multiple candidates for each judgeship, as well as retention elections in which voters decide whether to retain incumbent judges with a yes or no vote, according to the most recent report
by Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center for Justice on money in judicial elections.
In the 2013-2014 election cycle, more than 90% of the 23 contested seats were won by the candidate whose campaign raised the most money, according to the groups. The group found that spending by interest groups accounted for a record 29% of total spending, or $10.1 million, beating the previous record of 27% in the 2011-2012 cycle.
From: kenneth ditkowsky <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Diane Nash <email@example.com>; Mr. Lanre Amu — Honest Atty Unfairly Persecuted By ARDC <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ABA Commission On Racial and Ethnic Diversity In the Profession <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 11:53 AM
Subject: Fw: Breitbart News Roundup, November 6, 2015 – an important distinction!
Like it or not racist statements are protected by the First Amendment. As an individual I have an absolute right to be a racist and say the most terrible things about any race, creed, National origin etc; however, government and people acting for the government may not do so and certainly cannot use the government assets to promote racism.
In looking at the Breitbart News Roundup there are averments that CNN and various public officials are biased against Dr. Carson and that Jim Crow is alive and well in the 4th estate.
A not too subtle racism has been exhibited by CNN and CNBC et al from day one. This racism is directed at Dr. Carson as he is not the stereotype ordinary American citizen and certainly not the stereotypical black male. Dr. Carson’s basketball skills never get a mention, however, his amazing skills as human being and as a member to the healing arts over=shadow. Dr. Carson’s accomplishment are so outstanding that even the most benign racist has to admire him. However, a cadre of members of the 4th Estate have ganged together to use their National Socialism views to distort and defame an American who is extra=ordinary.
I will fight to the death to allow these miscreants and hypocrites to exercise their free speech pursuant to the First Amendment but I do not have to approve or like them or their tactics. As Americans we do not have to approve of racism, or any anti-social behavior on the part of individual citizens, but institutional racism and intolerance is another story.
That said, I want to make it clear that the actions of the Nazis in the media is distinguished from that of Jerome Larkin. Jerome Larkin is a public official – administrator of the IARDC. He receives public money from the people of the State of Illinois to protect the public from corrupt lawyers. He has under the Constitution a duty to not discriminate or interfere with the Civil Rights of American citizens. Even though Larkin protects corrupt lawyers from Honest investigations and public scrutiny, his breach of duty does not change his assignment or make anything other than a representative of the political establishment. Jerome Larkin’s rank racism is in my opinion a criminal act and must be addressed promptly by Law Enforcement. CNN’s racism can only be addressed by public forum and a boycott of CNN and those who support their obvious racism. Government cannot be involved!
There pursuant to 42 USCA 1983 Larkin is barred from using his position as a government agent (administrator of the IARDC) to discriminate against Diane Nash and/or Lanre Amu because of their claimed non-white racial characteristics. Therefore his denying Mrs. Nash her right to attend a public kangaroo proceeding conducted by the IARDC was unconstitutional and wrong. Similarly when Larkin prosecuted Mr. Amu for complaining at the judge who was on the board of a defendant seeking justice in her courtroom and the defendant being represented by her bother committed serious 18 USCA 241 and 242 crimes. (Crains Chicago Business – a business publication made the same averment). Such Jim Crow activities are criminal acts.
To further illustrate the distinction, in his personal conversations it would be Constitutionally acceptable for Mr. Larkin to call Mr. Amu a ****. He could even do it as lawyer – he just cannot do it as a public official.
I mention all of this because it is important not to over-react to the obvious racism and hypocrisy of CNN and so many in the mainstream media.
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Breitbart News <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Kenneth <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 11:07 AM