News-Record.com

What do you want to bet that, next election, the Republicans will create a front organization of their own so they can pump big money into supposedly nonpartisan judicial campaigns, too?* Doug

The state law Doug below. It appears that Unfair Judges Net is a bunch of judical outlaws. Is your paper going to endorsed this or file a complaint with the State Board of Elections while this crime is still in progress?

§ 163‑278.80. Definitions.

As used in this Article, the following terms have the following definitions:

(1) The term "disclosure date" means either of the following:

a. The first date during any calendar year when an electioneering communication is aired after an entity has made disbursements for the direct costs of producing or airing electioneering communications aggregating in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

b. Any other date during that calendar year by which an entity has made disbursements for the direct costs of producing or airing electioneering communications aggregating in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) since the most recent disclosure date for that calendar year.

(2) The term "electioneering communication" means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that has all the following characteristics:

a. Refers to a clearly identified candidate for a statewide office or the General Assembly.

b. Is made within one of the following time periods:

1. 60 days before a general or special election for the office sought by the candidate, or

2. 30 days before a primary election or a convention of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate for the office sought by the candidate.

c. Is targeted to the relevant electorate.

(3) The term "electioneering communication" does not include any of the following:

a. A communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, unless those facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate.

b. A communication that constitutes an expenditure or independent expenditure under Article 22A of this Chapter.

c. A communication that constitutes a candidate debate or forum conducted pursuant to rules adopted by the Board or that solely promotes that debate or forum and is made by or on behalf of the person sponsoring the debate or forum.

d. A communication made while the General Assembly is in session which, incidental to advocacy for or against a specific piece of legislation pending before the General Assembly, urges the audience to communicate with a member or members of the General Assembly concerning that piece of legislation.

(4) The term "prohibited source" means any corporation, insurance company, labor union, or professional association. The term "prohibited source" does not include an entity that meets all the criteria set forth in G.S. 163‑278.19(f).

(5) The term "targeted to the relevant electorate" means a communication which refers to a clearly identified candidate for statewide office or the General Assembly and which can be received by 50,000 or more individuals in the State in the case of a candidacy for statewide office and 7,500 or more individuals in the district in the case of a candidacy for General Assembly.

(6) The term "501(c)(4) organization" means either of the following:

a. An organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of that Code.

b. An organization that has submitted an application to the Internal Revenue Service for determination of its status as an organization described in sub‑subdivision a. of this subdivision.

(7) Except as otherwise provided in this Article, the definitions in Article 22A of this Chapter apply in this Article. (2004‑125, s. 1.)

§ 163‑278.82. Prohibition of corporate and labor disbursements for electioneering communications.

(a) Prohibition. – No prohibited source may make any disbursement for the costs of producing or airing any electioneering communication. No individual, committee, association, or any other organization or group of individuals, including but not limited to, a political organization (as defined in section 527(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), which has received any payment from a prohibited source may make any disbursement for the costs of producing and airing any electioneering communication. For the purpose of this section, the term "electioneering communication" does not include a communication by a section 501(c)(4) organization or a political organization (as defined in section 527(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) if the communication is paid for exclusively by funds provided by individuals and the disbursements for costs of producing and airing the communication are paid out of a segregated bank account that consists of funds contributed solely by entities other than prohibited sources directly to that account.

(b) Direct or Indirect Disbursement. – An electioneering communication shall be treated as made by a prohibited source if the prohibited source directly or indirectly disburses any amount for any of the costs of the communication.

(c) Segregated Fund. – Any disbursement for an electioneering communication made from an account must be made from a segregated account into which no funds from a prohibited source have been directly or indirectly introduced. (2004‑125, s. 1; 2005‑430, s. 9(b).)

Regardless (irregardless?), it is so much more fun to bet on politics than on football. It's just harder to figure out the over/under.

Doug, it was the Democrats who pushed the non-partisan judicial elections legislation when they started losing elections due to straight ticket Republican voting.

This whole strategy has been carefully plotted and put into fruition as we are seeing now. Both sides are playing the game with Republican judges frequently running as "conservatives" and Democrats using such tactics as Fairjudges.net as a front for partisan politics.

But let's not forget where it started and why. The whole notion of a non-partisan judiciary being best for North Carolina is almost always advanced by those who in reality have highly partisan motives. They just started losing, and this was the way to stop the bleeding while claiming a disingenuous high ground.

In practicality, political party affiliation generally has no effect at all on the quality and impartiality of judges. However, it does contribute to the perpetuation of power when vacancies exist and does become a greater factor the higher one moves up the judicial ladder because the power is greater. Look to the 2000 election for proof of that.

P.S., I appreciate that you have chosen not to ban me from your blog, unlike Lex Alexander who has a real problem with people who are critical of him.

Sam, I agree with you about the reason behind nonpartisan judicial races in North Carolina. But I believe it was the right thing to do.

The hypocrisy is that, whenever vacancies occur, appointments are anything but nonpartisan. The governor almost always appoints Democrats. Many of those he's appointed have subsequently been voted out at the first election.

The present Supreme Court consists of one elected Democrat, one appointed Democrat and five elected Republicans. The elected Democrat was actually elected in a nonpartisan race, as was one of the Republicans. The Court of Appeals is more balanced.

Depending on Tuesday's results, there could be a greater push for further reform in the judicial selection process. To me, these are the most interesting and important races on the ballot.