Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2006 > November > 05 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USWhat’s new about ‘06? It’s the money
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
By and large, the ballot you see on Tuesday will have the standard allotment of saints, scamps and scoundrels.
That said, one aspect of the ’06 elections differs mightily from any ever seen in Georgia. It involves two large gifts of cash.
In Georgia, individual campaign contributions to candidates are limited by law to $5,000 per election cycle.
But last month, two lawsuit-hating business groups sent $2.3 million down South, to boost the fortunes of Mike Wiggins in the race for state Supreme Court justice — and to defeat Carol Hunstein, the incumbent.
American Justice Partnership sent $1.3 million to a Georgia-registered group called the Safety & Prosperity Coalition — which spent the money on TV and radio ads, and direct mail.
Then there is the $1 million from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The check went to the state Republican party. We’re told that the amount will coincide almost precisely with the party’s expenditures on Wiggins’ behalf in the non-partisan race.
How is the $5,000 limit on contributions avoided?
First, it doesn’t apply to independent groups that campaign on specific issues, such as Safety and Prosperity. They can accept and spend as much as they want — but they’re not allowed to coordinate with a candidate.
Political parties also don’t have to pay attention to limits, if their TV ads are aimed at multiple candidates. Bundling, if you will.
But often, those the names of those other candidates only appear for seconds, in small type, in a 30-second ad. Democrats pioneered the loophole. Republicans have perfected it.
Gov. Sonny Perdue’s unabashed backing of Wiggins, a former legal advisor to the Department of Homeland Security, has little downside politically. Win or lose, the state GOP has cemented relationships with major donors.
But in this fight voters have lost something — the opportunity to see the money, and thus the motives, behind candidates who offer themselves for high office.
Wiggins, too, is bothered by the influence of money in this statewide fight between business interests and lawyers.
Late Friday, he proposed creating an independent commission to examine whether lawyers should be allowed to contribute to a judge’s campaign. Hunstein, he noted, raised $900,000 from lawyers who are subject to Supreme Court rulings.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Mary
November 5, 2006 6:39 PM | Link to this
If even the editorial writers for the Army, Marine, Navy and Airforce newspapers are demanding the removal of Rumsfeld who’s doing a great job in Bush’s eyes, the President and his party are in deep trouble. The Republicans are so desperate for any win, to hold onto any state, that they are willing to violate the tradition of non-partisan judicial races.
Maybe the statue of Justice with a blind fold and scales should be changed: she can hold a big cup with a hand on her hip and wink.
By Goose
November 5, 2006 7:48 PM | Link to this
One correction. Lawyers are not directly subject to Supreme Court rulings. It’s the clients who are. Apparently, Wiggins thinks business interests with cases before the Court can contribute unlimited sums, but lawyers can’t contribute anything. No wonder the Macon Telegraph referred to him as a “political lackey”.
By cman
November 5, 2006 8:16 PM | Link to this
“Apparently, Wiggins thinks business interests with cases before the Court can contribute unlimited sums, but lawyers can’t contribute anything.”
A very warped way of looking at it Goose. It’s been the lawyers who’ve dominated judicial contributions over the years and now business is just catching on. While the attorneys are not directly subject to the rulings, many live and die by their performances in the courtroom. You can be assured it’s in their best interest to curry favor with Judges.
Just follow the money and take a cursory glance at Judicial contributions.
By Goose
November 5, 2006 8:50 PM | Link to this
cman, why is it ok for business interests to contribute to judicial races, but not ok for lawyers to do so?
By Wahhhh Wiggins
November 5, 2006 9:55 PM | Link to this
Okay, I’ll follow the money Goose.
Look where it leads! Straight from major corporations like DaimlerChrysler to Wiggins! Do you think they’re contributing because they feel that the citizens of Georgia need protection against crime? Or maybe because they think Wiggins will issue rulings that are more in their interest?
Duh.
P.S. Contributing lawyers may be sleazy, but at least they’re presumably based in the U.S.
By cman
November 5, 2006 10:59 PM | Link to this
“cman, why is it ok for business interests to contribute to judicial races, but not ok for lawyers to do so?”
I don’t have any problem at all with business interests or lawyers contributing to judicial campaigns…lawyers have been involved in the process a lot longer then business interests.
I do have a problem with lawyers self-righteously complaining that business interests have somehow made the process political. What seems to bother lawyers is their lock on the process is at risk.
Business interests or for that matter attorneys have not made the process political, the Georgia Constitution makes it political. If you’re going to have an election for Judges then you’re going to have different interests supporting their given candidate. It’s natural for the trial attorneys to support one type of judge and business interests to support another type, what’s arrogant is for the attorney’s to think that business interests have less rights in the process then the lawyers.
“Contributing lawyers may be sleazy, but at least they’re presumably based in the U.S.”
I’m sure Ken Nugent and Gary Martin Hayes would be just as happy to take on a foreign client as a domestic client.
By Mary
November 6, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
The Bush administration has an unfortunate history of selecting candidates based on loyalty, not experience or integrity. Michael Brown and Harriet Myers are the poster children for this. Wiggins is another example. He is loyal, will do what he’s told, but has NO EXPERIENCE as a judge. Let him work in a lower level court and get the experience.
Hunstein has wide support among all kinds of attorneys, not just trial lawyers. When I want a medical specialist, I ask my doctor or the nurse because they know competency. It’s the same in the legal world.