And So We Wait . . .

What's the point of having a "Supreme" Court if it won't make the big, tough call?

From the Associated Press:

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - The Missouri Supreme Court took a pass on whether politicians must return the unlimited donations they raised during the first six months of this year. It passed that issue on to a state commission.

The Supreme Court last month reinstated Missouri's campaign contribution limits while striking down part of a law passed in 2006 that removed them. The court then sought suggestions about whether it should apply its ruling retroactively -- essentially whether candidates should be forced to return millions of dollars raised above the caps.

In a ruling issued Monday, the Supreme Court declined to decide that matter. Instead, it said the Missouri Ethics Commission should decide whether candidates must refund the contributions.

For more information, visit Supreme Court's supplemental opinion in James Trout v. State of Missouri, et al..

Republican Party Executive Director Jared Craighead accused Jay Nixon of a conspiracy:

“The Missouri Supreme Court’s pained decision to turn this case over to the Missouri Ethics Commission rests solely on Jay Nixon’s shoulders because of his blatant attempt to aide himself politically. Nixon refused to appeal the lower court’s decision on the constitutionality of the blackout period to the Supreme Court, and when the case reached the Missouri Supreme Court, Nixon conspired with opposing counsel to tank the case. Then, just today, Nixon issued a presumptuous and arrogant statement claiming to know exactly how the Missouri Ethics Commission would rule. We believe that candidates and contributors should not be punished for obeying the law and we sincerely hope that the Missouri Ethics Commission will take the people, and not politics, into consideration when deciding the fairest way to apply the law the people’s representatives enacted. Unfortunately we have an attorney general defending our laws who cares more about higher office than doing his job," said Craighead in a release.

The Democratic Party is almost already declaring a retroactive victory.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for those Missourians who believe elections should be fought on a level playing field,” said Jack Cardetti, Missouri Democratic Party spokesman. “The Supreme Court and the Ethics Commission agree that this ruling should be applied retroactively. In the one instance where the court had all the available information, it determined that James Trout did not have a hardship and therefore retroactivity must apply. Therefore the Ethics Commission can now order refunds of contributions in excess of the limits unless individual candidates can prove that enforcing retroactivity ‘would be a hardship.’

“It will be hard for Matt Blunt to argue that returning $350,000 from the Swift Boat benefactors creates a hardship,” Cardetti said.

“Candidates who have not yet decided to challenge an opponent, will now be able to without the fear that they must play by a completely separate set of rules,” Cardetti said. “Most importantly, today’s ruling is a step in the right direction for anyone who wants to loosen the grip of special interest money on Missouri politics.”