Commentary: Impartial justice or partial justices?

• Author: Ziemer, David

Byline: David Ziemer

When I sat down to read the Impartial Justice Bill (signed into law by Governor Jim Doyle on Dec. 1), which provides government financing for Supreme Court campaigns, my intent was to look at it from a legal perspective.

I just assumed that any legislation supported by the so-called good-governance groups will offend me on First Amendment grounds. For better or worse, that's my mindset going in.

But I never got that far. Instead, I found the bill abhorrent for practical reasons. Just looking at how difficult it would be to qualify for public financing, I was flabbergasted that anybody would support it, regardless of ideology or philosophy.

Consider what a candidate for the court must do to qualify for public financing:

[Receive] qualifying contributions from at least 1,000 separate contributors who are electors of this state in amounts of not less than $5 nor more than $100 in an aggregate amount of at least $5,000 but not more than $15,000.

Surely, it cannot improve our legal system to turn our justices into street beggars who have to drum up spare change in amounts of at least $5 but not more than $100 en masse.

Suppose a candidate allots a month to raise the necessary funds to qualify for public financing in five dollar increments. That means 34 donations would have to be generated every day for a month. And if you make a mistake in complying with this process, you face up to ten years in prison.

In return, any candidate who goes through this rigmarole this can get up to $400,000 from the taxpayers for his campaign, plus more, should any private group or citizen dare to exercise their...