Some High Court Judges Keep the $$$ Secret

It must be nice to be a politician, or a judge, in Idaho. The lines are getting blurry these days. Idaho is the only state that doesn't require personal financial disclosures from any government officials, according to a three-month study by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity. Utah and Montana also don't require that judges of their highest courts report personal financial interests, so any lucrative side businesses selling Mormon-approved underwear or beef jerky are fair game.

The center has compiled financial disclosure information about state high courts, governors and legislators across the country. Since D.C. isn't a state (yet), we got screwed again and were left out of the rankings.

A more alarming study by the National Institute on Money in State Politics and New York University's Brennan Center for Justice showed increasing amounts of campaign contributions flowing to judicial candidates from 1994 to 2006. Almost 40 states require some type of election to win a seat on the state's highest court.

For more color, check out this Legal Times story for a winding road trip through the South following a trail of campaign cash and old-school stump speeches from Kentucky Supreme Court candidates last year.

Comments

[A Montana Judge and Beef Farmer]

Forget Utah, and mormon-approved underwear, how can it be politically correct to poke fun at Montana and all she holds sacred?

The real question is, does Mr. Smith have a political agenda here, or does he just not like beef jerky?

[Tracy Hall Jr]

In a failed attempt at humor, Brendan Smith leers at something that is sacred to Latter-day Saints. ". . . so any lucrative side businesses selling Mormon-approved underwear or beef jerky are fair game."

Humor presumes a common understanding of some cultural phenomenon, which may or may not have some basis in fact.

But Smith is himself so ignorant of Mormon culture that he obviously does not know that Latter-day Saint temple garments can only be purchased, with evidence of church membership, at church-owned outlets, that only a single church-owned manufacturer is authorized to produce them, and that they are so inexpensive that it would be absurd for anyone to get into some "side business" in this tiny market.

Nor is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints involved with "approving" beef jerky, or any other commodity, for that matter.

Speaking of "fair game," why is it suddenly politically correct to mock things that are sacred to Latter-day Saints?

Would it have been politically correct for Smith to poke fun at the sacred attire of observant American Jews; or at some cultural practice commonly attributed to American Blacks?

Is it possible that Mr. Smith has a political agenda here, or is he just an ignorant bigot?

Tracy Hall Jr
Provo Canyon, Utah
hthalljr'gmail'com