Ballot Access News had a slightly different take on the impact of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in its initial review.

This language should make it easier to win lawsuits against state public funding laws which set unequal rewards for some candidates, relative to other candidates. Public funding laws in Maine, Arizona, and New Mexico, treat all candidates exactly the same. The public funding that formerly existed in Massachusetts also treated all candidates equally. But public funding laws in Connecticut and New Jersey, and a pending bill in California, do not treat all candidates the same; qualifications to get public funding are easier for Republicans and Democrats than for other candidates.

But a commenter had a more pessimistic take:

I think it is more likely to be used by opponents of public campaign financing to try to throw out provisions, such as those in both the current Arizona law and the proposed California law (I’m not sure about the bills and laws in other states), providing extra funding to publicly funded candidates whose privately funded opponents spend more than the basic public funding amount. The Supreme Court majority ruled against the “Millionaire’s Amendment” on the grounds that increasing the contribution limits for non-self-financed candidates was an attempt to discourage self-financed candidates from using their personal wealth to spend more on their campaigns. The “matching funds” provisions of the “Clean Money” public campaign financing bills are also intended to discourage non-publicly funded candidates from spending more (of both their personal wealth and legal donations from others) on their campaigns.

Public campaign financing schemes have to balance spending so much that they are seen as too costly (and therefore repealed as a boondoggle) against spending so little that no serious candidates participate because they’d be vastly outspent by competing privately financed candidates (and therefore repealed as a boondoggle). If “matching funds” provisions are ruled unconstitutional by following the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case, the only way to make participating candidates competitive is to substantially increase the basic funding available to all publicly financed candidates. However, if the basic funding for candidates is substantially increased, the only way to keep the total cost from substantially increasing is to allow fewer candidates to qualify for public funding. Rules that make it more difficult to qualify for public funding, with all candidates from all parties treated identically, have a disparate impact on third party candidates.

The Hawaii bill includes both increases in public funds to match a privately funded candidate, as well as increased reporting requirements for those privately funded candidates that are not applicable to candidates across the board. Both provisions would appear to run counter to the yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling and would appear to invite challenges by opponents of publicly financed elections.

Advertiser business reporter and blogger, Rick Daysog, observes that one of the first tests of the important agricultural lands bill, now awaiting Gov. Lingle’s signature, could be the 2,000 acres of prime ag land at the edge of Wahiawa owned by the George Galbraith Trust.

In a blog entry yesterday, Daysog wrote:

The new sales effort could get a boost from a measure passed by the Legislature this year that allows owners of ag lands to convert 15 percent of their acreage into new housing development.

The bill, which is awaiting Gov. Linda Lingle’s signature or veto, could result more than 300 acres for new housing, which vastly increases the value of the Galbraith Estate lands.

In this case, though, the development potential of the important ag lands bill is countered by a separate measure authorizing the state to purchase or condemn the property in order to keep in in agriculture.

This is certainly one of those situations that will be interesting to watch.

A reader offered this assessment of the derivative losses reported by Black Press, owner of the Star-Bulletin.

I’m no expert on the financial instruments themselves, but Torstar is saying it has recognized a loss in the value of its hedging investments, even though the company has not liquidated those investments at a loss, yet. Torstar is saying that the fair value of these foreign exchange and interest rate derivatives are being marked to market — that means they are being adjusted periodically in value on the company’s books to reflect their actual market value at the time, even though the investments have not been sold. Historically, companies left most asset values on the books at their cost, but this has changed in the post-Enron world. Mark-to-market means you treat the investments as if they had actually been sold at their current value. If the investment is losing money, you take a paper loss, even though you technically haven’t lost anything. If the investments continue to lose value, they will hit Torstar’s actual cash flow when the investments are liquidated.

One note of caution: It is clear from the financial statements that Black lost money in the quarter, but it’s not clear whether the hedging investments in Note 15 are Torstar’s or Black’s. This distinction could be important. The hedges are likely meant to hedge Black’s U.S. operations against the threat of a weak U.S. dollar, but Black Press itself may have had no control over the hedges in Note 15. It may have been Torstar’s gamble.

The Canadian dollar peaked at 1.09 USD late last year (the Canadian dollar could buy $1.09) and has remained just under 1.00 ever since. After years of decline, the U.S. dollar has strengthened a bit lately. If the U.S. dollar keeps strengthening, the hedge investment will really start to bleed Torstar. This is where the risk comes in.

For another window on the woes of the newspaper industry, check out The Daily Pulp, a blog carried in the New Times Broward/Palm Beach edition, which has been reporting on the cuts in Florida’s newspapers. It is more very depressing reading. But we’ve been there, done that, right?

It is another Feline Friday, so you get to enjoy a few more of our frisky felines.

This, of course, is the now semi-famous Mr. Toby. He’s the star of today’s batch of cats.

Just click for more.