"Nobody outside of a baby carriage or a judge’s chamber believes in an unprejudiced point of view."

- U.S. dramatist Lillian Hellman

"It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive."

- Justice Earl Warren

"Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out."

- English essayist Sydney Smith

A reader last week commented on my article regarding the Wisconsin Supreme Court election. While I cannot concur with all of his points, the reader is right that it is the candidate who is running for election, not the candidate’s family or associates.

I mentioned Justice Butler’s close family relationship to a police officer who was killed in the line of duty not to indicate his qualification for the position, but as a small part of the rebuttal of attacks made on Justice Butler that claimed he worked to free dangerous criminals, and did not support law enforcement. Under the circumstances of that outrageous slander directed at Justice Butler, that brief personal fact was a valid one to point out to readers.

It was also quite correct to point out that my description of Judge Gableman as "a mediocre third-stringer" was not substantiated in my article, and was "an open show of bias." Mea culpa.

I never linger in the middle of the road or pretend to be neutral. However, I usually indicate facts or references that support and inform my writing. But with regards to that statement, I did not. A column I submitted before the election, but was not published in the News Graphic, provided substantiation for my assessment. See: www.clydewinter.word press.com/2008/03/27/louis-butler-v-michaelgableman/

In point number 7, Mr. Luckjohn said, "The failure of both candidates to have any control over the ads that were run was surprising since both of them specialize in law." That sentence exhibited a substantial, though understandable, lack of knowledge.

First, the very worst ad that was run during the campaign (in fact, the very one mentioned in point 7) was personally authorized and later defended by Judge Gableman. So he did exert full control over that ad. (All other questionable campaign ads were run by PACs or by phony issue ad groups, not by the candidates’ official campaigns themselves.)

Second, the law explicitly forbids candidates and staff from coordinating with issue advocacy groups or independent expenditure PACs that are engaging in election activity. Had a candidate tried to exert "control over the ads that were run" by PACs or phony issue ad groups, he would have violated the law.

Candidate’s official campaigns in Wisconsin cannot be funded by corporations since 1907 and by labor unions since 1947, and are controlled by ethics and election laws.

Corporations or labor unions can however, operate PACs. PACs have to divulge their sources and amount of funding, but are not subject to the same rules that apply to candidates. The all but unregulated phony issue ad groups can be formed by, and receive unlimited funds from, any individual, association, or corporation, from anywhere, and do not have to disclose who has formed or funded it.

This is the loophole big enough to drive WTO Panamax freighters and NAFTA/CAFTA trains and semis through, side by side. For example, an issue ad group calling itself "U.S. Citizens for Freedom and Democracy" anonymously organized and funded by corporations headquartered in the Cayman Islands or Saudi Arabia, could put up millions of dollars to discredit with falsehoods and misleading statements Wisconsin candidates for public office known to oppose slavery and child labor, or air and water pollution.

These phony issue ad groups have increasingly dominated recent Supreme Court elections. A good case can be made they have already bought our Wisconsin judiciary.

Good sources for basic nonpartisan facts, definitions of terms, and the history and future of campaign financing and reform efforts in Wisconsin can be found here: www.wisdc.org/wdcmoney101.php and http://www.wicleanelections.org/

Finally, despite all the unstated agreement, I find in the other points made, I can not agree on Luckjohn’s last point, scurrilously accusing Justice Butler of supporting something he calls "the gay agenda."

Human rights and civil rights belong to all people. Protecting those basic rights (not opposing "the gay agenda" to someone’s homophobic satisfaction) should be the first order of responsibility for any Supreme Court Justice.

There is no need or justification for hatred, fear, loathing, or condemnation of gay people. They don’t need your or my unsolicited advice or correction. I am not obsessed with them, as, sadly, some people appear to be.

We have all served and worked and prayed with gays. I have known them as trusted friends, and am pleased to share our country and this blessed planet with them.

I defend human and civil rights for all. If you can’t bring yourself to do that, at least lay off the judging and condemning.

Who should be casting stones, and where?

Don’t expect our judicial system to manifest your bigotry. Instead, let us look deep and honestly inside the hidden corners of our own hearts for something there that finally needs spring cleaning.

Clyde Winter lives on the town of Cedarburg farm founded by his ancestors in 1848. His "Hearts and Minds" blog can be found at http://clydewinter.wordpress.com.