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