ILNews

IBA: Support Judicial Candidates for 2012

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IndyBar’s Attorneys for an Independent Bench (“AIB”) political action committee is a great alternative to direct political contributions for those seeking to support judicial candidates in the 2012 elections for Marion Circuit and Superior Courts.

Chaired by former Indiana Supreme Court Justice Theodore Boehm, AIB was formed to receive contributions from those within the Indiana legal community wishing to support judicial candidates without regard to political affiliation.

“Judges have become vehicles for raising funds for political parties,” Justice Boehm remarked in his public comments upon his retirement from the bench. In creating AIB, it was the intention of the Indianapolis Bar Association to address such a concern while promoting public confidence in attorneys, judges and the justice system.

All contributions received by AIB, less minimal administrative costs, will distribute equally among all judicial candidates on the certified candidate list released by the Election Division of the Indiana Secretary of State following the May 2012 primary.

Voluntary contributions to the PAC are now being accepted and will continue to be until forty-five days prior to the November 6, 2012 general election. Checks should be made to Attorneys for an Independent Bench and sent to the Indianapolis Bar Association at 135 Pennsylvania Street, Ste. 1500, Indianapolis IN 46204, or donate online at www.indybar.org/aib. A complete list of all donors will be filed timely with the Marion County Election Board.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT