Today's Offers:

Arguments > Our View

Disarming dilemma
2/1/2008 10:47 AM  

SZ200_OurView.jpg

Putnam Circuit Judge O.C. "Hobby" Spaulding says he won't be taking campaign contributions this election season.

To avoid any appearance of impropriety, the judge says, he'll bankroll his campaign out of "personal savings."

"When people, and especially attorneys, put money into a judge's campaign, some may think that judge owes them something," Spaulding told The Record last week.

It's a thoughtful sentiment.

But before you decide the longtime jurist is everything the people would ever want in a public official, consider another reason he's chosen to make such a public sacrifice.

He can.

In addition to having deep enough pockets to fund a countywide campaign, Judge Spaulding stands to benefit from the perks of incumbency.

A Putnam County public official for more than three decades, Spaulding has served 16 years on the bench. Before that, the Democrat served for five years in the high-profile position of county prosecutor.

Among the electorate in places such as Winfield, Hurricane and Poca, he has what a political operative would call "high name ID."

People around town know Hobby Spaulding. So he needn't spend money introducing himself, spelling out his plans, or promoting his legal accomplishments to potential voters. He doesn't need an expensive direct mail campaign, ads in the newspaper or on cable TV.

Spaulding's opponent in the May 13 primaries, estate lawyer Rosalee Juba-Plumley, doesn't have that luxury.

As an unknown challenger in a near-the-bottom-of-the-ballot race, she'll need to campaign hard to get voter attention. And in taking on a veteran incumbent, Juba-Plumley will have to do better than persuade the electorate she is good; she'll have to convince them to make a change because she is better than Judge Spaulding.

In this modern media age, credibly vying for votes in a county of 54,000 people, that will cost a lot of money.

We shouldn't forget that money is required to make any kind of incumbent challenge in electoral politics. Far from the font of all evil, campaign contributions are the lifeblood of change, dynamism, and accountability in our democratic system. Without campaign contributions, we'd be stuck with the status quo, whether we preferred it or not.

That's why incumbents are often the ones eager to enact campaign warfare disarmament measures -- like donation limits and spending caps. Such "reforms" disproportionately benefit those in office by effectively crippling the efforts of would-be usurpers.

If Judge Spaulding wants to disarm himself and reject contributions in this election cycle, that's his prerogative. But he shouldn't expect his opponent -- nor should he criticize her -- for failing to do the same.

EMAIL A FRIEND | PRINT | DIGG THIS | POST TO DEL.ICIO.US

Comments on this article

  • No dilemma at all

    How can the West Virginia Record in good conscious question Judge O.C. Spaulding’s motivation for funding his own campaign. Judge Spaulding has given nearly his entire professional life to upholding the law in Putnam County. He has served as an assistant prosecutor, a prosecutor, and a circuit court judge. In the past sixteen years, he has earned a reputation as a judge who will apply the law without bias or prejudice. Judge O.C. Spaulding recently stated that he will not accept campaign contributions, but will instead finance his re-election campaign from his personal savings. The West Virginia Record implies he may do so because he has “deep pockets.” The fact is, Judge Spaulding is able to finance his own campaign because he has set aside a portion of his paycheck from his judicial salary each month for the past eight years for this purpose. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states, “[a] judge shall respect and comply with the law, shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities, and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Judge Spaulding has repeatedly stated that he will not accept contributions to avoid exactly this appearance of impropriety to which Canon 2 speaks. Finally, the West Virginia Record states that Judge Spaulding should neither expect nor criticize his opponent in the May primary for accepting campaign contributions. He has done neither. But ask yourself, if you were a litigant in Putnam County, would you rather have Judge O.C. Spaulding on the bench or someone who received a large contribution from the opposing attorney? Eric S. Embree Travis W. Hoffman Tyree, Embree & Associates, PLLC

    by Travis W. Hoffman

    url:

  • Disarming Dilemma

    Thanks for the editorial. Although I too am funding most if not all of my own campaign, fundraising should be available to those qualified candidates that are not fortunate enough to have inherited money, like some candidates, or like myself, had a good year last year. Because my practice had a good year, I was able to and anticipated funding my own campaign. I am not fundraising because frankly, no firms want to contribute against an incumbent Judge. If I have received any contributions, I feel certain they are from family or close friends. I do not know because as judicial candidates, we are not allowed to know who and how much is contributed. I can say honestly, however, that I have personally loaned my campaign sufficient funds to pay for the extensive advertising that is necessary to take on an entrenched incumbent. Again, you editorial was insightful and appreciated. Rosalee

    by rosalee juba-plumley

    url:

SEND US YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

* - Required fields

Subject: *
Message: *
Contact Name: *
Contact URL:
Contact Email: *
This Is CAPTCHA Image
Write the characters in the image above: