<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rss [<!ENTITY % HTMLlat1 PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES Latin 1 for XHTML//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml-lat1.ent">]>
<rss version="0.92" xml:base="http://www.campaignmoney.org">
<channel>
 <title>Public Campaign Action Fund - judicial public financing - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.campaignmoney.org/blog-tags/judicial-public-financing</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;judicial public financing&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Impartiality for hire?</title>
 <link>http://www.campaignmoney.org/blog/2007/05/30/bright-spot#comment-81233</link>
 <description>It makes sense. If judges are supposed to be impartial, then having to raise campaign funds can compromise their impartiality. Especially when the expense of running is so high that it requires raising money form corporate entities and connected individuals.</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:17:40 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
