Court Opinion

ID: 9653626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:50:24.868408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:00.497506
License: Public Domain

WINTERSHEIMER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
KRS 121.025 and the Kentucky Constitution, Section 150, specifically prohibit the use of corporate funds, either directly or indirectly, for the nomination or election of any state officer, including judicial officers. These statutory and constitutional sections are absolute and do not provide for any exceptions. KRS 121.025 is a simple and clearly worded statute which does not lend itself to any other interpretation because of the plainly stated language used by the legislature. It is the obligation of the courts to uphold the clear language of the law and not to impose unnecessary “judicial legislation” by means of interpretation of what has been clearly defined by statute.
No challenge is made by the Registry of Election Finance to the promulgation of the Bar poll by means of a press conference or press release, or by other internal or external means. The sole objection by the regulatory agency is the use of corporate funds in contravention of Kentucky law.
The need for information by the voting public on all public questions is abundantly clear. To apply the language used by Justice Rehnquist in his dissent in the case of Bellotti, supra, the free flow of information is in no way diminished by the regulatory requirement of legislation here. The meritorious goal of a better informed electorate does not justify the avoidance of the clear meaning of the law. Lawyers and legal organizations have the highest obligation to observe the letter of the law and its spirit.
This Court can only decide what is immediately before it. We cannot indulge in speculation as to what would result from a challenge to other types of corporate political activity. This Court and the American tradition of jurisprudence clearly respect the rights of the press to free expression, but to insert the fallacious issue of freedom of the press in this case is totally unnecessary.
Here, the solution is relatively simple and could be achieved by the formation of a committee for the express purpose of informing the electorate of the Association’s poll results. Additionally, the regulations could be amended administratively or by legislative action.
Philosophically, I would agree with the conclusions in an article in the American Bar Journal, June 1978, Page 814, that only real persons should debate and determine public policies. Treatment of corporations as persons is a legal fiction.
Because it seems that both parties are well-intentioned and the election in question is long since over, the resolution of this dispute might be better accomplished by arbitration and compromise rather than by involving the courts in such a question.