"Joint primary ballots OK'd by judge"

The Anchorage Daily News offers this report, which begins: "A Superior Court judge has thrown out a state law requiring separate primary ballots for each of Alaska's political parties. Judge Mark Rindner said the 2001 law that bars parties from listing their candidates together on a joint ballot unnecessarily restricts the right of association for parties and voters. Political parties that want to close their primaries are free to do so, but parties that don't want to close their primaries should not be forced to, he wrote Thursday in a summary judgment against the state."

Indiana ballot dispute and "The A Team"

The Indianapolis Star offers this report, which begins: " Democrats won nearly every provision of their lawsuit over Marion County’s controversial election ballot today — a decision that will force county officials to redesign and print an entirely new voting card in 27 days. Senior Judge James Harris ruled that for the Nov. 4 general election, candidates must be grouped by party rather than by office — the opposite of a ballot design that had been proposed and used in previous elections. The court also struck down a new Republican Party symbol that carried the words 'The A Team' as part of the logo." Thanks to Ed Feigenbaum for the pointer.

"The Benefits of Campaign Spending"

John Coleman has written this CATO Institute briefing paper. Here's the summary:

Critics of American politics often say that spending on electoral campaigns harms our democracy. They charge that the money goes for cynical, negative, and misleading advertisements that alienate the public from politics and elections.

Political scientists have collected and analyzed data on the connection between campaign spending and civic life. The data bear on several questions at issue in campaign finance debates: Does campaign spending reduce public trust? Does it reduce levels of citizen involvement in or attention to campaigns? Does it lower citizens' knowledge of information relevant to their votes? Who benefits from campaign spending?

Studies indicate that campaign spending does not diminish trust, efficacy, and involvement, contrary to what critics charge. Moreover, spending increases public knowledge of the candidates, across essentially all groups in the population. Less spending on campaigns is not likely to increase public trust, involvement, or attention. Implicit or explicit spending limits reduce public knowledge during campaigns. Getting more money into campaigns should, on the whole, be beneficial to American democracy.