Court: State owes Trout $100,000 in legal fees
AP has the story:
JEFFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — An appeals court says the state must pay about $100,000 in legal fees to a former candidate who challenged the repeal of Missouri’s campaign contribution limits.
Democrat James Trout, of St. Louis, achieved a temporary victory last year when the Missouri Supreme Court struck down a 2006 law that repealed contribution limits. The ruling in Trout’s lawsuit was based on procedural grounds, and it forced candidates to refund millions of dollars.
Lawmakers responded by passing another law repealing the limits. Since Aug. 28, candidates again have been able to take unlimited amounts of money.
The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, on Tuesday upheld a trial court ruling awarding Trout $93,214 for attorneys fees, $4,553 for legal costs, plus interest.
Trout fights unlimited campaign contributions to prevent special interest lobbies from being able to pull too many strings, and wins his case. Then the special interest groups pull more strings, repeal that ruling and ultimately have are able to contribute without limits anyway. I’m trying to figure out who’s the “bad guy” in all of this… the guy who wants to clean up politics, or the people with money enough to buy their influence and who wish to maintain the status quo.
This guy costs the state 100,000 dollars and then is one of the first candidates to accept a large donation…SHAME ON YOU…
Yo Jim, you talking to me? Shame on me? All I did was point out that unlimited campaign contributions is one of the problems in or political system. It’s not like the amount of money involved here is something intangible or abstract… like say 700 billion dollars to bailout fat cats on Wall Street with taxpayers money, or 12 billion dollars monthly for the war in Iraq. Hundred grand’s a drop in the ocean.
Does this mean that Jay Nixon’s office will be fighting this ruling in the state Supreme Court like he did with the same ruling in the concealed weapons case (which he ultimately lost)? Taxpayers fund the attorney general’s appeals like this which seem like a huge waste of our money.
Was Trout one of the first to accept a large contribution? How much, and who from?
I assumed the honor of getting the first huge checks would’ve gone to Huslhof and Nixon.
I said shame on Mr. Trout…I think there is more to this story, about the players involved and his later accepting of larget contributions that maybe the paper should look into since so many people have questions about it…