W.Va. getting attention for election funding bill

By LAWRENCE MESSINA

CHARLESTON, W.Va.

Several national groups are taking sides on legislation, approved Monday in the state Senate, that would offer public funds to future candidates for West Virginia's Supreme Court.

The Justice at Stake Campaign and the Committee for Economic Development unveiled recent polling of West Virginia voters Monday as they endorsed the public financing proposal, part of Gov. Joe Manchin's agenda this session.

The two nonpartisan groups decry the recent deluge of campaign cash into state judicial races. They were joined by Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeff Kessler, D-Marshall, whose committee endorsed the bill later Monday. That non-unanimous voice vote sent the measure to Senate Finance.

But the Center for Competitive Politics, a nonpartisan foe of such measures, questions the bill's benefits. That group released an analysis last week predicting the legislation would prompt a legal challenge if enacted.

Manchin has proposed offering public funds to candidates for the two seats on the five-member court up in 2012. The study of the state's courts he commissioned last year, with retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as its honorary chair, recommended such a pilot project in its November report.

Candidates would have to meet a fundraising threshold to qualify for public financing, and then abide by the program's rules. It would offer candidates $200,000 initially for a contested primary and $350,000 for a contested general election. Massive spending by third parties or nonparticipating candidates would trigger the release of additional funding.

Justice at Stake Executive Director Bert Brandenburg told reporters at a Capitol press conference that between 2000 and 2009, state supreme court candidates nationwide raised $206 million. Such races had attracted less than half that during the previous decade. Since 2000, meanwhile, independent groups have poured another $40 million into televisions ads alone targeting court contests, Brandenburg said.

"No one who goes to court wants to know that their judge is trapped in a money chase, dialing for dollars and depending on support from the parties whose cases they will decide," Brandenburg said.

The economic development group, a partner of Justice at Stake, represents business leaders and university presidents. The public financing bill would allow companies to compete in the marketplace, instead of the political arena, group Vice President Michael Petro told reporters.

Both groups commissioned a poll by Anzalone Liszt Research, which works with Democratic candidates, and said the results showed bipartisan support for public financing. That support increased, they said, when voters were told of last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that arose from West Virginia's 2004 election.

The 5-4 decision faulted state Justice Brent Benjamin for hearing an appeal filed by Massey Energy Co., after company Chief Executive Don Blankenship spent at least $3 million to help Benjamin win his court seat.

Other Justice at Stake partners include the American Bar Association, Common Cause and groups representing both plaintiff and defense lawyers. But the Center for Competitive Politics says such advocates have yet to show that public financing removes the bias they blame on campaign cash.

"There is no evidence that taxpayer financing schemes decrease the activity and prevalence of interest groups in politics," the group told Kessler in a Friday letter also sent to media.

The analysis said the bill's release of additional "rescue" funds is legally flawed, citing federal rulings in Arizona and Connecticut that struck down similar provisions in those states.

"Under the guise of expanding the opportunity of speech, this bill, in fact, restricts it," the analysis said. "By offering a tax financed candidate funds every time an outside group or opposing, nonparticipating candidate uses its resources to speak out against the participating candidate, the state is chilling the speech of privately funded campaigns and groups."

But Brandenberg said that the provision in North Carolina's public funding law, which inspired Manchin's proposal, has so far withstood legal scrutiny. He noted the recent ruling upholding it in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes West Virginia.

"The law of the land right now in West Virginia puts this particular provision on very good footing," Brandenberg said.

The House passed the bill to the Senate last week, 67-30. The session ends midnight Saturday.