(Wanted to make sure everyone saw this. - promoted by Phillip Martin)
We have an opportunity to take a big step in favor of promoting a fairer judiciary with less influence from big-money donors. Polling has indicated a strong sentiment in favor of separating judges from having to solicit contributions. HB 3146, sponsored by Rep. Rafael Anchia (D)-Dallas, provides for a basic system of optional public financing for judicial campaigns. Considering the reputation of Texas' judiciary, this is a no-brainer. Your support is needed this Wednesday April 15th at the Elections Committee hearing for HB 3146. Contact committee members here. Here is the schedule for Wednesday's hearing on HB 3146 - the Judicial Clean Elections Bill. Key Provisions of Texas HB 3146 To qualify, judicial public financing candidates must show support by getting a fixed number of signatures and small qualifying donations ($5) from voters. Once they qualify, judicial public financing candidates stop gathering signatures and collecting qualifying donations; they can devote all of their time to building relationships with their constituency. Judicial public financing candidates who qualify get a competitive amount from a public fund and agree to abide by all campaign financing and elections rules and regulations. This bill also provides for the Secretary of State to publish a statewide voter information pamphlet identifying and providing biographical information about the judicial publicly financed candidates. This bill also contains provisions for setting limits on contributions to judicial candidate elections. Contact Rep. Anchia’s office for further information or contact John Courage, Chairman of the Public Finance Committee for Common Cause of Texas, at (210)-216-5020 or johnc@truecourageaction.net with further questions about the legislation. North Carlina's Judicial Public Finaning System In 2002, the North Carolina General Assembly passed unprecedented legislation meant to reduce the influence of partisan politics and big contributions in judicial elections. As a result, judicial candidates can opt into a public financing program that provides them with funds to run their campaigns if they willingly forgo other contributions from PACs, attorneys, etc. In 2004 and 2006, 20 of the 28 candidates running for NC Supreme Court and NC Court of Appeals opted into this public financing system. A total of nine of 11 winners in 2004 and 2006 were participants — a victory for North Carolina voters, and a step towards fulfilling the principle of 'one person, one vote'. North Carolina’s success is a blueprint for a court system with more integrity. In fact, the SMU chapter of the student organization Democracy Matters brought NC Court of Appeals Judge Donna Stroud to SMU in the Fall of 2007 to speak about her experience with the system. She emphasized the drastic reduction in attorney contributions to judicial campaigns, the reduction in judges' involvement in fundraising, and the increased public confidence in the judicial system. Since the North Carolina judicial campaign program was enacted, the amount of attorney money and litigation-related special interest money has drastically declined. In 2004 judicial campaigns relied on attorneys and special-interest groups for less than 14% of their non-family funds. Two years before in 2002, when campaigns were entirely privately financed, 73% of campaign money came from attorneys. The NC system has been embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike. The program has also facilitated the participation of thousands of new North Carolinians in the political process. Thousands of registered voters – more than 4,000 in 2006 – provided the modest qualifying donations that authorize the candidates to qualify for the public funds. These voters often become the base of candidates' campaigns; furthering the grassroots transformation that public financing brings to state judicial campaigns. |
