Saturday, October 31, 2015

Mystery Group Donates Millions to Democrat Supreme Court Candidates in Pennsylvania

NOTE:  The Democrat candidates for Supreme Court in Pennsylvania have all been endorsed by Planned Parenthood.  We need to make sure we all get to the polls this Tuesday and vote for the Pro-Life Candidates.   If we neglect to vote, we are in truth giving a vote to these candidates and also our approval of the atrocities committed by Planned Parenthood! 
Educate yourself and please use this link from Pennsylvania Family Institute to find out where the candidates stand on life issues! 

By Eric Holmberg
Public Source

Many familiar organizations gave to Pennsylvanians for Judicial Reform so it could run attack ads against the three Republican candidates for Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

In the past month, the group raised more than $2.2 million from affinity groups representing Philadelphia trial lawyers, teachers’ unions, labor unions and others.

Pennsylvanians for Judicial Reform is an independent expenditure group, meaning they can buy political ads but they cannot coordinate with the candidates or advocate for the election or defeat of a specific candidate.

But there’s an unfamiliar group called PA Alliance that contributed $500,000 to fund the attack ads through Pennsylvanians for Judicial Reform since Sept. 11, making it the second largest contributor behind the Philadelphia trial lawyers.

It gave more than the big labor unions — Service Employees International Union ($488,000) and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees ($400,000) — and more than the state and national teachers’ unions.

With three of the seven seats on the state’s highest court up for grabs and the remaining members split 2-2 along party lines, control of the court will be decided next week.

“It's dreadful the amount of money going into our elections,” said Terry Madonna, pollster at Franklin & Marshall College. “Money's a corrupting influence and it's got to be regulated some way, somehow.”

The ads alleged one candidate did not author various legal articles as she claimed and that other candidates have failed to protect women or women and children.

“The candidates are benefitting from ads that are largely misleading,” said Bruce Ledewitz, a law professor at Duquesne University. “In almost every instance in which a judge is accused of doing something bad, it was simply something required by the law.”

No comments:

Post a Comment