On June 4, U.S. Senators Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) and Mark Udall (D-Colorado) introduced a bill to delete any public funds for presidential convention expenses. The bill, if enacted, would not take effect until next year. Each party that polled at least 25% of the vote in the last presidential election is entitled to approximately $17,000,000 to help pay for its national presidential conventions. Parties that got 5% but under 25% get a lesser amount.

The bill would not have any effect on money spent by government to provide security for the conventions, which now requires an expenditure of approximately $100,000,000. Here is the text of the bill.

On June 4, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Siegelman v United States, 11-955, even though over 100 former state Attorneys General had filed an amicus curiae brief, asking the Court to hear the case. See this story from yesterday’s Los Angeles Times that explains the case. Also, a group of distinguished election law professors had also filed a similar amicus curiae brief. Don Siegelman had appealed his bribery conviction. Many observers felt Siegelman was not guilty and that the Court needed to hear his case to set forth clearer standards about the precise connection between bribery and campaign contributions.

Siegelman is Alabama’s last Democratic Party governor. He was elected in 1998 and barely defeated in the general election of 2002. He had previously served as Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State. Now that his U.S. Supreme Court appeal has been denied, he will go to prison.

The U.S. Supreme Court seems to have a pattern of refusing all election law cases, in years after which the Court had received a great deal of criticism for an election law decision. After the December 12, 2000 decision in Bush v Gore, the court then refused all new election cases for all of calendar year 2001, until December 3, 2001. Similarly, the Court has refused all new election law cases during 2011 and 2012 (so far), after having received a great deal of criticism for Citizens United v FEC and Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v Bennett, two campaign finance decisions decided by 5-4 votes.

The Socialist Alternative Party has qualified a candidate for the Washington state legislature this year. She is Kshama Sawant. Here is the party’s web page, describing the campaign. She is running in the 43rd district, place one, for State House. Because the only other person who filed is a Democrat, she is guaranteed to place second and will be able to run in November. Here is a community news blog about her campaign.

The Socialist Alternative Party is the U.S. affiliate of the Committee for a Workers’ International, which seems to have its strongest branches in Asia. As far as it known, this candidacy in Washington state is the first time the party has contested an election in the United States.

Because Washington state does not permit party labels to exceed fifteen characters, her ballot label is “Socialist Altern.”

Washington state has very few minor party candidates (for office other than President) this year. The only other ones who are members of actual organizations are one Reform Party member running for Governor, one Constitution Party member running for Lieutenant Governor, one Progressive Party member running for state legislature, and one Green Party member running for state legislature. The Socialist Workers Party nominated a candidate for Governor but she did not pay the filing fee to appear on the primary ballot.