OK you lawyers -- here's more from the Arnebeck suit

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-7020.pdf

Can anyone decipher this for me/us? What has the Chamber of Commerce got to do with anything???

a recap of actions taken today. In other words, the Chamber of Commerce case is not related.

The part about the Arnebeck suit just allows an extension of time to file and allows the case to go forward.

In any event, it appears they ruled AGAINST the Elections Commission in their request for them to take jurisdiction over an appeals case against the Chamber of Commerce. They declined. So whatever the appeals decision was in the Chamber of Commerce case will stand.

This is just a recap.

filing deadlines are extended to Monday because the Court was closed on friday due to weather.

pro hacs are admitted (this is a routine courtesy).

Chamber of Commerce case is a different case.

"The 10th District Court of Appeals in Columbus upheld the commission's decision and refused to interfere with its fine of $25,000 for each day the chamber refuses to comply with subpoenas to reveal which corporations financed the ads.

In 2002 and 2004, the chamber again financed radio and TV ads promoting Chief Justice Moyer and Justices O'Donnell and Stratton, all Republicans. In both election cycles, the chamber voluntarily disclosed its contributors, predominantly corporations and insurance companies.

But it has continued to argue that donors to its $4 million campaign in 2000 had anonymously exercised their First Amendment right to free speech and that they didn't cross the line of expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate.

Freshman Justice Maureen O'Connor, also the focus of third-party ads in 2002, has not recused herself from the case.

"It's an appearance problem," said Clifford Arnebeck, attorney for Alliance for Democracy, whose complaints led to the elections commission rulings. He has argued that the court should refuse to hear the chamber's appeal."


My translation: The court today refused to hear the Chamber's appeal. So Arnebeck's position in effect "won". The COC continues to be fined every day it doesn't disclose its donors.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041109/NEWS02/411090381

It sounds so to me! :D

Commerce is the reputh kool aid stand. In many states, the State Chamber pays for the advertisement for judicial candidates that are "conservative". The repuths have been using the 527s to fund campaigns for years under the guise of the Chamber and its "public service" ads. In Mississippi the AG sued the MS Chamber, a federal judge ruled it was a violation of campaign laws but the 5th Circuit reversed saying the ads were public service ads and not campaign ads, thus they were protected under the 1st Amendment. The Chambers are evil repug recruiting arms, under the mask of helping small businesses, the pollute the water and the minds to believe that repugs are good and dems are bad. Arnebeck has been figthing them for years.

The first case the court will still hear. Documents which were supposed to be filed on Thursday will be allowed to be filed today because of the weather. The court allowed the extention "sua sponte" which means that nobody asked for the extention; the court granted an extention without a request. Out of state lawyers who had requested that they be allowed to practice in Ohio for this one case are allowed to do so. That is what we call practicing "pro hac vice."

The second case the court will not hear. It has ruled that it does not have jurisdiction.

and it has been accepted.

The Ch of Com is a different case

That explains why Moyer is not presiding --

2 points go to the "good guys" column.