you know what is more boring? All that Project Runway blogging every week.

People in Seattle love to feel upset so they can feel morally superior. I hate that about this town. At least in Champagne-Urbana where I moved from people knew how to party.

Upset, come on down to Southeast Seattle. We don't get upset. We just open another Rainier, and turn up the stereo.

People are upset because this is sort of the first time in modern Washington that a group like BIAW has openly campaigned to "buy the Court."
I say sort of because "Justice" James Johnson is already on their payroll for all necessary purposes. That guy wouldn't know a fair ruling if it grabbed him with both hands.
There are some people out there who have yet to accept that the whole system is a sham, despite all the evidence. It will only get worse until we have publicly financed elections.

If I wanted to live in Soviet Russia and have Party members "elected" to run kangaroo courts by the BIA, I'd have shot myself in the head a long time ago.

But I didn't. So, it's time to fight back against these attempts to foist activist right-wing judges on us.

Josh, you're right, of course, that judicial races are politically charged--now. But if you are over, say, 35 and have lived in Washington a while, you can remember that 15-20 years ago it wasn't like this, or at least it wasn't between about 1970 and 1990.

I can remember trying to research judicial candidates before voting when the only information available was their bar association rating and some press recaps of any famous cases they were involved in. You had to be the kind of insider I wasn't in order to know who their political friends were. Judicial elections became more politicized when conservatives began to press their case against "activist judges."

So it's not just pompous hypocrisy or naivete to bemoan the politicization of judicial elections. There really WAS a time within recent memory when judges ran more on their fitness as judges. Of course, there have also been times when people didn't try to use the courts as alternative legislatures and judges were more likely to decide a case narrowly on its own facts.

So, let me get this straight:

1) Judiciary decisions in this country are and always have been for sale to the highest bidder.
2) Anyone who expresses outrage at this is either putting on airs or lives under a rock.

You are part of problem, Josh. It would be interesting to hear if the News Editor of the Stranger feels the same way about journalism.

Josh, I understand that your objection is to the handwringing in particular, but judges are different from the other two branches of government. Or at least they should be.

I actually think Danny Westneat has the right idea: public financing, but only for judicial elections.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003262521_danny17.html

There would still be campaigns and endorsements, but the idea that a judge would be in a position to give a quid pro quo in exchange for a campaign donation is actually appalling to me.

Why? Because judges can't discuss a case that might come before them. Which means they can take all this money, but we can't hold them to it because they can't talk about upcoming cases ... which are precisely the cases that they're most likely to receive donations for.

Can you imagine if that were true for legislators? It would be terrible! Imagine if you, as a reporter, couldn't ask a congressman or senator about anything that might come up in the next legislative session.

Elected judges = corrupted judges. Full stop. We shouldn't be electing them, period. Go back and read some John D. MacDonald (not the Travis McGees, the other ones) for confirmation. Elected judges = Florida.

What is a BIAW?

Building Industry Association of Washington

Google is your friend.

The sad fact about these races being awash in BIAW money--or any money--is that the only candidates who attract big money are the candidates with a definite agenda. Two problems there: (1) the big money and hence the candidates attracting the money are only on the far right of the political spectrum (not a "problem" to some, I realize), and (2) the money has a huge impact in these races because voters don't have as much information about judicial candidates as they have about candidates in other races. Add 1 and 2 and you can see that the court will take a swing to the right.

It used to be that a smart and legally experienced with a good judicial temperment could raise a fair amount of money in relatively small donations, much of it from there lawyer peers. But now those sorts of donations are dwarfed by the money that an ideological position can attract. When the funds go to those who take strong ideological or issue-driven positions, then there's no room for the fair-minded middle-of-the-road judge.

The BIAW gigantic political slush fund is filled from a river of "profits" from its private L&I program that provides worker's comp insurance to its members. The Legislature has the power to turn off the spigot, but House Majority Leader Frank Chopp--a big recipient of BIAW money--has refused to do so. Readers in Chopp's 43 district should ask Chopp why he's in bed with the BIAW.

Judicial positions may be political, but they should not be bought by huge corporations or special interest groups like the ever-rabid BIAW. Although in this case, I can't help wonder if Groen knows when to apply the rational basis test and when to apply a heightened level of scrutiny to discriminatory laws, because Alexander sure doesn't.

We all agree one person, one vote, right? How do you decide who to vote for? A lot of that decision is based on what you know.

What people know about candidates is what they see or hear in large measure.

Right now you can give up to $1400 per election to support
a particular judicial candidate. That money is used to promote the candidate to voters. But because the Washington State Legislature did not also limit what you can give(spend) to support a candidate via a so called independent PAC, the BIAW can spend (give) $1 million to support their candidate.

So one person, one vote but you can spend a million or more to try to elect your hand picked candidate? Remember Groen was the Chair of the BIAW's Legal Committee and also his lawfirm represented the BIAW in legal cases. Independent??
Yes and I also have purple eyes and can fly like Superman.

Lets make the system fairer and limit contributions to $1400 in total per election by a person whether its given directly to the Candidate's committee or indiredtly to some so called "independent" PAC that also spends the money to support the candidate.

That would be the fairest way to limit undue influence by single interest special interest groups.

Nope, you're boring, Josh. Check the numbers.

Groen: $1,870901.10
Alexander: $568,515.36

Who's buying? Groen's buying. There is no equivalency between Groen's BIAW cash ($192 K) vs. Alexander's SEIU cash (a measly $2 K).

Annie,

The latest PDC reports show that all the Independent Expenditure groups that lined up against the incumbents spent about $1.6m.

The pro incumbent IEs spent about $490K.

So, yes, the bad guys spent about 3 X as much.

(The numbers you report, I think, are the amount raised.)

Anyway, the point is: If the good guys can raise a half million dollars, it means they can play ball. (It was 1 IE vs. about 6 IEs on the bad guys side, btw.)

Had pro-incumbent side, the Democrats basically, been as focused and prepared as the anti-incumbent side (not caught off guard like Dems always are), the numbers indicate that they could have competed.