Campaign Contributions

There is a growing trend of lawsuits filed against laws that restrict the amount of money that can be donated by PAC’s, lobbyists, and individuals to candidates that they wish to support. Recently, citizens of Minnesota have joined in on the trend by filing a suit against one of the states campaign finance laws. The lawsuit comes at the heels of the recent McCutcheon decision. In this case, McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee went to the Supreme Court to argue that the law is a violation of an individual’s first amendment right to support a candidate of his/her choice; the fact that there is limit on how much money is contributed to a candidate, and to how many candidates a citizen is willing to support is not the government’s business. The Federal Election Commission, along with others who side with campaign contribution restrictions, explains that laws are needed to limit the amount contributed to a candidate in order to reduce and fight corruption (Sullivan, 2014).

The lawsuit in Minnesota is aimed at getting rid of a law that pertains to state elections, unlike McCutcheon. Minnesota currently has laws that limit contributions from “special sources” that include: “PAC’s, lobbyists, “large contributors”, and citizens who may give up more than half the base contribution limits for state races (Henry, 2014).” Contributors  can give up  $4,000 dollars to a gubernatorial candidate and $1,000 for House races; but once gubernatorial candidates reach $730,000 and House candidates reach $12,500,future contributors are limited to only giving half of the base limit. Paul Sherman, from the Institute of Justice, explains that in the McCutcheon case the Supreme Court held that, “contribution limits can only used to prevent quid pro quo corruption and are otherwise a burden on free speech (Henry, 2014).” Further on, the question is raised on what makes special source contributions corrupting if they aren’t corrupting prior to the candidates hitting his/her special sources cap (Henry, 2014)?

References

Henry, D. (2014, April 21). Campaign finance lawsuits in Minnesota and other states take aim at contribution limits. Retrieved from MinnPost: www.minnpost.com/effective-democracy/2014/04/campaign-finance-lawsuits-minnesota-and-other-states-take-aim-contributi

Sullivan, S. (2014, April 2). Everything you need to know about McCutcheon v. FEC. Retrieved from The Washington Post: www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/08/supreme-court-takes-up-the-sequel-to-citizens-united/

Links

www.minnpost.com/effective-democracy/2014/04/campaign-finance-lawsuits-minnesota-and-other-states-take-aim-contributi

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/08/supreme-court-takes-up-the-sequel-to-citizens-united/

Greenville drivers start to put phones down as law takes effect

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/25115309/greenville-drivers-prepare-for-distracted-driving-ban

 

Summary

Recently Greenville City passed an ordinance that would impose drivers with a fine if they are caught using any hand held device while driving. Texting, calling, and using a phone for its GPS features could result in a $100 first offense and would increase each time the offense is committed again. Drivers are not completely prohibited from using their phones; they can be used as long as its hands free. The ordinance allows Greenville Police to also enforce the law in public parking lots, but they are primarily focused on drivers on roadways (you have to be legally parked in order to be able to use your phone). The only time a driver may be exempt from the ordinance is if the driver is calling to report a crime or an emergency to the proper authorities. Public safety personnel are exempt from the law if they are using their phones for work related duties.

Opinion

I’m personally surprised to hear that Greenville has passed an ordinance that would make it illegal to use a handheld device while operating a vehicle. The reason for my surprise is that it took them a while to pass such an ordinance; especially considering the fact that the City of Clemson, a much smaller city, passed a similar ordinance back in 2010. Yet, I feel that it’s great that they have gone ahead with such a measure because it will surely lower the amount of accidents due to driver distraction.

Having passed this ordinance is sure to cause annoyance with drivers since talking on the phone is also considered illegal under the new city law. Perhaps this is the only part that I am sort of hesitant about. I agree that texting and using a phone for its GPS features should be prohibited but I’m not so sure about talking on the phone. When texting, the drivers eyes are obviously not on the road, but that is not the case when merely talking on the phone. I believe this is the part of the ordinance that will aggravate the most people but not so much the texting portion of the law.

I also agree with the section that pertains to allowing public safety personnel to use phones while they are driving. They are in charge of responding to emergencies and having a phone on hand can help make their job easier. I really would like for public safety departments to make sure that their employees do use phones for work related duties though. Another part of the law that I agree with is that the police will mainly focus on texting on roadways and not so much on parking lots. Still, officers have the authority to ticket drivers that they feel are driving while texting in public parking lots.

 

 

South Carolina and California:

Method of Judge Selection

From what I saw between the South Carolina and California judicial system is that the southern state breaks down its courts more so than California. South Carolina has four levels: Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Family/Circuit/Master-in-Equity Courts, and Magistrate/Municipal/Probate Courts (South Carolina Judicial System, 2014). California on the other hand has its Judicial System broken down in three simpler levels: Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Superior Court (American Judicature Society, 2014). Both states select their judges under “The Missouri System” and general elections, but they add  a twist to the Missouri System.

Let’s start off with South Carolina. Judges of the: Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit, Family, and the Administrative Law Division are chosen by a joint public vote of the General Assembly after a commission has reviewed and screened the candidates (Judicial Merit Selection Commission, 2014). Both the Master-in-Equity and Magistrate Judges are appointed by the Governor but they differ on who advises and consents. The General Assembly is responsible for the Master-in-Equity Judges, while the Senate is responsible for the Magistrates.  Municipal Judges are elected by municipal councils (Judicial Merit Selection Commission, 2014). Finally, the public is in charge of electing Probate Judges.

California’s system of appointing judges is a little different than South Carolina. Supreme Court Justices are also screened by a commission, but after the Governor appoints a judge; he/she must be confirmed by the Chief Justice, Attorney General, and a presiding justice of the Courts of Appeals (American Judicature Society, 2014). Selection of judges for the Court of Appeals follows the same protocol as the Supreme Courts. Judges for the Superior Court on the other hand are voted for in nonpartisan elections, where they serve 6 years.  The Governor of the state holds the power to fill vacancies but even then nominees have to be screened by a commission (American Judicature Society, 2014).

Links:

www.judicialselection.com/judicial_selection/index.cfm?state=CA

www.judicialselection.com/uploads/documents/California_1184079734639.pdf

www.judicial.state.sc.us/judges/howJudgesElected.cfm

www.judicial.state.sc.us/summaryCourtBenchBook/HTML/GeneralA.htm

References

American Judicature Society. (2014, April 3). California Court Structure. Retrieved from American Judicature Society: www.judicialselection.com/uploads/documents/California_1184079734639.pdf

American Judicature Society. (2014, April 3). Judicial Selection in the States: California. Retrieved from American Judicature Society: www.judicialselection.com/judicial_selection/index.cfm?state=CA

Judicial Merit Selection Commission. (2014, April 3). How Judges Are Elected In South Carolina. Retrieved from South Carolina Judicial Department: www.judicial.state.sc.us/judges/howJudgesElected.cfm

South Carolina Judicial System. (2014, April 4). Retrieved from South Carolina Judicial Department: www.judicial.state.sc.us/summaryCourtBenchBook/HTML/GeneralA.htm

Debt Limit

The debt limit is a figure of money that the legislative body of the government authorizes to be borrowed in order to meet existing financial obligations. These obligations can include: military, social security, interest on the debt, Medicare, tax refunds, and other governmental expenses (United States Treasury, 2014).  When the government cannot pay for its existing financial obligations with its current authorized limit, Congress can be asked to raise it. An article from CNBC reports that the debt limit has been raised on various occasions in order to avoid a default on debt (Koba, 2013). To be specific, since 1960 it has been raised 78 times; 49 times under republicans holding office and 29 times under democrats (Koba, 2013). Yet, this was not always the case. Prior to the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, Congress had to authorize each individual item; but with WWI on the horizon the act was passed in order to better manage the war (Koba, 2013). The debt ceiling was thus created to allow the government to fund involvement with the war, but still have a cap that would be respected.

Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIbkoop4AYE

References:

Koba, M. (2013, October 8). Debt Ceiling: CNBC Explains. Retrieved from CNBC: www.cnbc.com/id/101047518

United States Treasury. (2014, March 29). Debt Limit. Retrieved from US Department of the Treasury: www. treasury.gov/initiatives/pages/debtlimit.aspx

Governance, as defined in the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, is, “the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented) (Sheng).” It is important to understand that the government is not the only entity responsible for governance. Business organizations, civil associations, religious institutions, unions, financial institutions, military, etc. all contribute to governance of a population (Sheng). Good governance is characterized by 8 major characteristics; which include: it is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive, and follows the rule of law.

            With this guideline for what constitutes good governance we can apply it to state and local level of government. Participation is exemplified by local and state elections. Voters, regardless of social class can take part in this process and have their voiced heard. State constitutions take care of the “Rule of Law” characteristic. They enact executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government that counteract and balance one another to have a fair system. State constitutions also incorporate the Bill of Rights that give citizens protection from unwarranted government interference as well. The transparency and responsiveness characteristics are also found in state constitutions. In South Carolina, the freedom of information section is found in Title 30 of the constitution. At the local level an example can be going to a police department and asking for a police report. In regards to responsiveness, citizens have the right to expect emergency services, and when facing criminal charges, the right to a speedy trial.

            As Mr. Sheng explained in the United Nations document, in governance there are many individuals with many ideas. Consolidating these ideas into broader ones is what explains the consensus oriented characteristic. Elections are a prime example. Voters elect candidates that best serve their interest; either at the local or state level. Equity and exclusiveness is characterized by voting rights and civil rights. Also, responsible use of tax revenue I feel would fall in this category. Effectiveness and efficiency can be seen by responsible use of resources within a jurisdiction. States typically have some form of agency that takes care of its natural resources and educates its citizens on how to take care of them. Finally, accountability can be seen at the local and state level when citizens urge the government for officials to step down. Transparency plays a part in this, because states can have documents available for the populous to view reports that document the actions of local and state government.

References

Sheng, Y. K. (n.d.). What is Good Governance? Retrieved from www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/good-governance.pdf

I chose to look up a town meeting of Anderson, South Carolina. The date of this town meeting was February 10, 2014. The meeting first starts out with a prayer lead by a the Mayor of Anderson and then the Pledge of Allegiance is said. During this meeting, a lifelong firefighter is being honored for his 27 years of services and is given a plaque to commemorate his accomplishments. Another firefighter was also awarded for his services; he received a Lifesaving Award for helping keep alive a man that had suffered a gunshot wound.

 Following this, the town council went on to review a few items that had previously been brought up. The first was a request of reconsideration of a city ordinance to rezone a property near Anderson University to make it a multi-family residential rather than a single family. The request was passed unanimously. The second item that was addressed also dealt with rezoning a property from limited office to neighborhood commercial. There was one issue that was raised by a citizen. The citizen was concerned about the parking in the proposed area because of the high traffic are that is there; he would also like to see the plans in order to feel better about the issue.  

The second issue was the approval or denial of a contract with Carolina Clear in order to abide by new regulations set up by the federal Clean Water Act where the city had to set up a public awareness and education program. This act was passed by split decision (5-3). The ones opposed did not feel comfortable about spending $15,000 a year when it was possible to do it in-house. They also argued that why go above and beyond following the regulations when they can just get by, still follow the rules, and save money. Those that supported it felt that going along with the contract would save money in the long run. Another item dealt with was with an ordinance that allowed citizens to keep chickens in coops within city limits. The city manager recommended approving the removal of a section that would require the council to keep voting on the section each year. 

The final item that was heard by the town council was about a contract about a storm water line in order to improve drainage and reduce sinkholes. Some questions that were raised by some council members were the lifetime of the new piping. Another question that was raised was why the area of the new storm water line preceded other areas that were worst off and needed priority. The city manager responded that area in question was not a low budget project, but would be addressed when possible.


Youtube addresss of video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeRvAzLlOAs 

This week’s reading assignment pertained to initiatives aimed at helping rural America. Dr. Bruce Ransom from Clemson University explains that since the 1950’s urban America has been the focus of attention in terms of creating opportunities for the populous, while rural communities have been left in the dark (Ransom, 1998). These communities do not receive the same help and are prone to get hit hard by various factors which include: a decline in population, jobs and tax bases (Ransom, 1998). The federal Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities program is designed to help communities set up a framework of plans that can help mitigate these factors and help improve the quality of life for the communities. A community must come up and implement a “broad-based community strategic planning process” in order to receive funds from the federal government.  The idea behind this plan is that helping the community fight unemployment, poverty, and eroding economies will increase the general welfare of the community (Ransom, 1998). I think that this is a great program that can have a positive outcome if it is implemented well and funds are allocated appropriately. It’s great to see the federal government has an interest in helping rural areas as opposed to concentrating all help to urban areas.

References

Ransom, B. (1998). Planning For Development In Rural Areas: An Assessment Of The Strategic Plans For South Carolina's Enterprise And Champion Communities. Clemson: Strom Thurmond Institute.