Here’s an interesting twist to the growing perception that partisanship and private money are creeping into judicial elections: What happens when elected judges are asked to interpret campaign finance rules that have governed their own campaigns?
That’s what’s playing out in a case argued yesterday before a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals involving provisions of the state’s “stand by your ad” law. That law requires candidates or committees to disclose who’s paid for television ads they run.
After the 2010 election, the Friends of Joe Sam Queen — the committee for the Democratic candidate running for the 47th Senate District seat that year — sued his challenger Ralph Hise’s committee and the Republican Executive Committee for violations of that law.
Hise went on to win that seat, and is now seeking re-election. Joe Sam Queen is running for a House seat this year.
In the case before the court, Queen claimed that the Republicans paid for Hise ads but didn’t disclose that, allowing the ads to air instead with the statement “paid for by Ralph Hise for Senate.”
His committee wants to collect the nearly $250,000 Hise paid for those ads as damages, as permitted under the “stand by your ad” law.
But the Hise committee said he paid for the ads by virtue of an account the Republicans had set up with the campaign’s media company, American Media, for the benefit of candidates. The party deposited funds into that account, but only after Hise approved an ad could American Media draw down on that account to pay for air time and expenses. Read More