Campaign bribery of judges legalized
Minnesota's independent judiciary may soon end. The U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision set a false precedent that corporations may make unlimited contributions to elect or defeat candidates in our state. The precedent is false because the core question -- whether corporations qualify as persons -- has never been formally decided, but was falsely cited as precedent by a court reporter in the 1866 case, Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad.
Just recently, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce filed a suit to challenge Minnesota Statute Chapter 211B.15, subdivision 2, which prohibits corporations from making contributions "directly or indirectly" to candidates. If the Supreme Court precedent in Citizens United is applied as it was written only weeks ago, then the Chamber will win.
Here in Minnesota, our judges are elected public servants who must raise money to finance their re-election campaigns. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court has unofficially given the green light for judges to accept "cash for verdicts" in Minnesota. All Americans must agree: bribery should never be protected speech. Our campaign finance laws are already too weak to prevent legislative candidates from accepting "cash for votes." While this practice of "quid pro quo" is technically illegal, the burden of proof is often beyond reach even in the most flagrant cases.
If a Minnesota corporation knowingly develops a product that they expect to kill customers, then there is no longer any impartial, uncorrupted process to hold that corporation accountable in any of our three branches of government. Minnesota judges are prohibited from directly soliciting contributions from donors, in order to prevent exactly the sort of judicial corruption that this precedent makes possible. However, corporations and corporate proxies will be able to offer unsolicited donations to any party. As a result, corporate bribery should easily be expected to dwarf any sum a judge could raise independently.
Our independent judiciary is dead. Now, what are you going to do about it?
COLIN LEE, LAKEVILLE
Helping kids learn to be prepared Imagine the home carpenter you just hired asks to borrow your hammer. "Where is yours?" you ask. "I forgot it at home" would be the reply. Based on past school experience, the carpenter expects to exchange a shoe for the needed supply.
In my 20 years in education, I have heard students saying "I forgot" countless times in response to a teacher's request for needed material, be it a pencil, paper or a completed homework assignment. The student has clearly arrived at class unprepared.