A bill that would create a public campaign financing pilot program for the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and was sent to the Senate floor.

House Bill 4130 creates a public campaign finance program for the 2012 election cycle which would be funded through attorney fees, special court fees and funds from the purchasing card administration fund of the West Virginia Auditor’s Office.

The measure was one of several recommendations from the Independent Commission on Judicial Reform. The commission was formed by Gov. Joe Manchin to find ways to improve the state’s court system. Read the full commission report here.

A candidate would need to collect at least $500 qualifying contributions with at least 10 percent coming from each congressional district and raise a minimum of $35,000 or maximum of $50,000. Qualifying contributions must come from a West Virginian voter and can be from $1 to $100. If candidates successfully complete these requirements a committee would determine whether they receive public funds. There are penalties for dropping out of the race without permission or returning the public funds.

Qualifying candidates would receive $200,000 for a contested primary, $50,000 for an uncontested primary, up to $350,000 for a contested general election and $35,000 for an uncontested general election. The program expires in July 2013

The initial public financing fund would receive $3 million from the Auditor’s Office and the new fees are expected to raise another $1 million to $3 million for the program. During committee debate, State Sen. Clark Barnes, R-Randolph, questioned how much money the purchasing card administration fund had in its account. Jonathan Deem, representing the Governor’s Office, did not have an answer to the question.

“All I know from the Auditor (Glen Gainer) himself was there was sufficient monies in that account to cover these transfers without any kind of concern,” said Deem.

State Sen. H. Truman Chafin, D-Mingo, questioned the purpose of spending millions of dollars on the pilot program when those monies could be used for more important issues, such as road maintenance. He also argued that candidates with money would be unwilling to participate.

“If you have 10 people and only two participate, you’re not really helping the problem are you,” asked Chafin. “Anybody who has substantial money is not going to comply with this $200,000. We’re spending millions of dollars here for no purpose.”

“When (North Carolina) had the choice of public financing, many candidates – even though they knew they could raise and spend more money than the actual limit – felt there was a benefit to being a publicly financed candidate and running on a platform that says ‘I did not take private funds; I’m beholden to no one or special interests,’” answered Deem.

“That is a lot of money to spend on the hope that somebody is going to say ‘people are going to like me because I complied with this,’” added Chafin.

State Sen. Evan Jenkins, D-Cabell, attempted to amend the bill by allowing only one judicial race to take part in the pilot program. There are two Supreme Court seats up for election in 2012 – both for 12-year terms – but the amendment failed.

“We have 24 years of justice on the line in this experiment,” noted Jenkins. “That seems to me, honestly, to be a heck of a trial run. Wouldn’t it be great to have them side-by-side? Then we can really see side-by-side what works and what doesn’t work.”

In a press conference earlier today, Senate Judiciary Chair Jeffrey Kessler, D-Marshall, was joined by representatives of the Justice at Stake Campaign and the Committee for Economic Development. According to a survey commissioned by both groups, over two-thirds of potential voters see contributions to supreme court campaigns as a “serious problem” with 52 percent in support of public financing. You can watch a video of the press conference below:

One group raising concerns about the bill is the Center for Competitive Politics. In a letter dated March 5, 2010, Laura Renz, Research & Government Relations Director for the CCP, expressed her doubts whether the bill would pass constitutional muster.

“The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Public Campaign Financing Pilot Program is being sold as a vehicle to protect the ‘impartiality and integrity’ of the judiciary and ‘strengthen public confidence’ while little, if any, research suggests tax financing schemes achieve these goals,” wrote Renz. “Moreover, the bill has serious constitutional flaws that make it unlikely to survive in court.”

Specifically CCP takes issue with a provision in the bill that makes use of rescue funds. If expenditures of candidates not receiving public financing or the expenses of independent Political Action Committees opposing public financed candidates exceed 20 percent of the initial campaign financing, all participating candidates would receive additional funding – rescue funds – up to $400,000 in the primary and $700,000 in the general election. Renz states that rescue funds stifle free speech.

“Programs in Arizona, Connecticut and Maine are similar to HB 4130 in that they offer so-called ‘rescue funds’ for candidates who are opposed by the spending of independent groups or who face being outspent by opponents who opt not to participate in the taxpayer financing system,” explained Renz. “But recent rulings in both Arizona and Connecticut have struck down ‘rescue fund’ provisions as a violation of the First Amendment.”

“If the Senate passes this bill without remedying its obvious constitutional flaws – including (rescue funds) that two federal judges recently ruled unconstitutional – it would be the legislative equivalent of begging for a lawsuit against the state,” stated CCP Chairman Bradley A. Smith in a press release. Smith is a former Federal Election Commission Chairman.

Supporters of the bill point to North Carolina, whose rescue fund provision was upheld by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and was left untouched by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008. Renz also submitted testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The letter that Renz wrote is posted at the end of this article.

UPDATE: The bill was sent to the State Senate floor for first reading.

Center for Competitive Politics Responds to W.Va. Public Campaign Finance Pilot Program

Related articles by Zemanta

• Senate confirms Keenan to Appeals Court seat (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Can’t We All Just Get Along (and Confirm Our Judges)? (blogs.wsj.com)
• Court to rule in military funeral protest case (seattletimes.nwsource.com)