<?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.publicampaign.org">
<channel>
 <title>Public Campaign - Alabama and New York Weigh Judicial Public Financing - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2006/11/06/alabama-and-new-york-weigh-judicial-public-financing</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Alabama and New York Weigh Judicial Public Financing&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Alabama and New York Weigh Judicial Public Financing</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2006/11/06/alabama-and-new-york-weigh-judicial-public-financing</link>
 <description>One place where the public financing solution is seeing increased traction is in regards to judicial races, where the conflict between accepting campaign contributions and maintaining judicial impartiality is all the more clear. North Carolina has adopted it, Washington is thinking about it, and now legislators and citizen groups in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1162721744157310.xml&amp;amp;coll=2&quot;&gt;Alabama&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/110506JudicialHearings.html&quot;&gt;New York &lt;/a&gt;are weighing the option. </description>
 <pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:59:36 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
