Google
 
Web rhymeswithright.mu.nu

February 20, 2014

Excess Campaign Contribution Kerfluffle Raises A Different Issue Than It First Appears

For those closely following the harris County Republican primary, the issue of campaign donations to Judge M.L. "Meca" Walker has been a tempestuous controversy. For those not following the race, the issue is almost certainly below the radar. So let me toss out the bare-bones facts for you.

Local judicial candidate Meca Walker said she has returned campaign contributions given to her in violation of Texas ethics rules by employees of Houston auto magnate Don McGill, who has a pending divorce case in the Harris County family court over which she is seeking to preside.

Walker currently is the associate judge in that state district court, the 247th. The campaign contributions in question, $5,000 each from four Don McGill Toyota employees and their wives for a total of $40,000, were made in a single day in December.

* * *

State law limits the amount a person or couple can donate to a judicial candidate to $5,000.

Walker said she returned the excess contributions on Tuesday after receiving confirmation from the Texas Ethics Commission that the donations were greater than the limit, something she did not know.

"This is just a huge, innocent mistake that is being blown to epic proportions and it doesn't have to be," she said.

Now I'm not going to get into the matter of what candidate has been pushing this story and what former associate judge and court clerk are hoping to get positions under that candidate in the event Walker is not elected. Frankly, that is not my focus -- though it was a major issue in my decision not to endorse that other candidate and my vow to never endorse that former associate judge for any office in the future.

No, my focus is much different from the petty politics at work here.

It is, in fact, on the Constitution of the United States and how the law that led to the return of the excess donations may itself be an affront to the Constitution.

Consider what the law says -- that a married couple are to be treated as a single unit for making campaign donations to judicial candidates (and only judicial candidates). It halves the level of political contributions that two individuals are allowed to make to the same candidate based upon their exercise of a fundamental human right -- the right to marry. That, my friends, seems to me to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now for those of you unfamiliar with Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence, you have to realize that the courts use one of three standards when examining a law that treats people differently because of some status or classification. Three are a couple different levels of scrutiny to which such classifications are subject.

Fundamental1[1].jpg

You may ask -- which level of scrutiny applies in this case? Now I'm not a lawyer, but I'd argue a case can be made that strict scrutiny should apply, due to the fact that a fundamental right (participation in the political process) is restricted due to the exercise of another fundamental right (the right to marry). After all, an individual's right to contribute to the candidate of his or her choice is restricted due to marital status -- an unmarried couple living together, even one with commingled assets, would be allowed to contribute twice as much to a particular judicial candidate than to a judicial candidate than a married couple is permitted to donate.

But I'll be honest -- I do not know if the law in question even survives a rational basis review. After all, there really is not a reasonable basis for limiting campaign contributions to to judicial candidates -- and only judicial candidates -- in this way. Every argument that would justify such a limitation would require that the total contributions to a single judicial race be so limited, not merely those to a single candidate in that race. What's more, those same arguments would rationally require that the limit be extended to all contributions to candidates for any political office, not merely judicial candidates. It is therefore fair to say that the disparate treatment of married couples lacks a sound rationale and therefore cannot stand up to under even the deferential standard for examining non-suspect classifications for Equal Protection infirmities.

Of course, our legal system is such that only real cases or controversies are considered by our federal courts. In order for there to be a ruling on the matter, someone would need to bring suit in federal court, alleging an actual harm. That would mean that some couple would have to come forward alleging harm and file suit in federal court -- something I doubt will ever happen because the cost of such a suit would far exceed the benefit of being able to donate an extra $5000 to the judicial campaign of their choice. As such, I hope that the Texas Legislature will take this matter up during its 2015 session and undo this act of discrimination against married couples.





|| Greg, 10:00 PM || Permalink || Comments (0) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Trackback Information for Excess Campaign Contribution Kerfluffle Raises A Different Issue Than It First Appears

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/284809
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Excess Campaign Contribution Kerfluffle Raises A Different Issue Than It First Appears'.

Comments on Excess Campaign Contribution Kerfluffle Raises A Different Issue Than It First Appears

Post a comment

Remember personal info?


 

 





AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg






Winner - 2013 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2012 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2011 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2010 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2009 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Posts by Category

Announcements (posts: 13)
Blogging (posts: 179)
Border Issues & Immigration (posts: 407)
deferred (posts: 4)
Education (posts: 661)
Entertainment & Sports (posts: 478)
Guns & Gun Control (posts: 64)
History (posts: 323)
Humor (posts: 84)
Israel/Middle East (posts: 35)
Medical News (posts: 54)
Military (posts: 272)
News (posts: 1542)
Paid Advertising (posts: 234)
Personal (posts: 106)
Politics (posts: 5027)
Race & Racism (posts: 267)
Religion (posts: 802)
Terrorism (posts: 853)
Texas GOP Platform Reform Project (posts: 3)
The Courts (posts: 307)
Watcher's Council (posts: 438)
World Affairs (posts: 341)

Archives

August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
December 0000



MuNuviana



Licensing

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered By

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64
AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg

Administrative Stuff

Email Me
Syndicate this site (XML)

Advertising Disclosure

adpolicy.gif

About Me

NAME: Greg
AGE: 50-ish
SEX: Male
MARITAL STATUS: Married
OCCUPATION: Social Studies Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dogs, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.

Search This Site


Support This Site



Recent Entries

Austin Is A Liberal Island In The Heart Of Texas
HERO Petition Case Sent Back To State Court, Ordinance Put On Hold
HERO Opponents Challenge Petition Rejection In State Court, City Moves To Make It A Federal Case
If We Are Going To Talk About "Economic Patriotism"
London Times Refuses Ad Condemning Hamas
Oh, No! Not Bacon!
Fallout From HERO Repeal Failure
Dictator-In-Chief Plans To Impose Taxes Without Congressional Approval
Anti-Semitic Former President Comes Out In Favor Of Legitimizing Terrorist Organization Dedicated To Exterminating Jews
Video Of Hamas Rocket Launch From Civilian Area

Blogroll


Watchers Council
  • Ask Marion
  • Bookworm Room
  • The Colossus of Rhodey
  • The Glittering Eye
  • GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
  • The Independent Sentinel
  • JoshuaPundit
  • Liberty's Spirit
  • New Zeal
  • Nice Deb
  • The Noisy Room
  • The Razor
  • Rhymes With Right
  • The Right Planet
  • Simply Jews
  • Virginia Right!
  • Watcher Of Weasels

  • Political & Religious Blogs