Money in Politics: Judicial Campaigns

The Good and the Bad of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Caperton v. Massey

 

June 2009

 

Statement from Bob Hall, Executive Director, Democracy North Carolina:

 

Democracy North Carolina joins others in applauding the 5-4 decision of U.S. Supreme Court in Caperton v. Massey. A slim majority of the high court agreed that a state judge who benefited from the exceptional campaign spending of a single donor should have recused himself rather than rule on a case involving his benefactor.

The press release below from Justice At Stake describes the case in more detail. Democracy North Carolina is a member of the Justice At Stake coalition, as well as of NC Voters for Clean Elections, which is also releasing a statement <ncvce.org>. North Carolina’s public financing program for judicial elections provides a valuable alternative to the unfettered money hustle that threatens our democracy and court system. The program is a national model for judicial reform and illustrates how we all benefit when elected officials don’t rely on wealthy special interests for their election.

It is disturbing that four of the justices, including the chief justice, could say that three million dollars spent by a company executive for a judge’s election is not enough to disqualify the judge from hearing the court case involving the company. These justices appear ready to weaken or overturn reasonable standards that protect the public from judicial bias and political corruption.

Indeed, Justice Roberts’ dissent demonstrates that the Supreme Court has a group of four activist judges who are determined to undermine reasonable regulations and let wealthy individuals, special interests and corporations use their financial muscle to dominate elections, public policy debates, and judicial decisions. Roberts claims that allowing judges to rule on cases involving their million-dollar benefactors is less harmful to the public’s confidence in the court system than requiring judges to accept recusal. That perspective has unfortunate consequences for our future.

* * * *

PRESS RELEASE FROM JUSTICE AT STAKE

 

Washington, DC - Bert Brandenburg, 202-841-1735

 

Legal Reform Groups Hail Caperton Ruling

 

Organizations representing a broad swath of America’s legal community hailed today’s U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Caperton v. Massey and pledged to step up their efforts to help states insulate their courts from special-interest influence.

 

“This is a tremendous victory. The Supreme Court said, ‘Enough is enough,’ ” said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of the Justice at Stake Campaign in Washington. “Today’s ruling has sent a simple message to states that elect judges: Get to work and keep campaign cash out of our courts of law.”

 

James Sample, an attorney for the Brennan Center for Justice, who authored a “friend of the court” brief in support of the petitioners, noted that, “Ted Olson and his clients earned a victory not only for themselves, but for all Americans who believe in the most basic aspect of the rule of law, the right to a fair hearing.”

 

Caperton v. Massey, which grew out of a case involving two West Virginia coal companies, became a widely publicized poster child for what can happen when special interests dominate the election of judges.

 

Don Blankenship, CEO of Massey Energy Co., spent $3 million to elect Brent Benjamin to the West Virginia Supreme Court in 2004 after a jury had slapped his company with a $50 million judgment for fraudulent business practices. Benjamin twice refused to recuse himself, and cast the deciding vote to overturn the jury award.

 

Competing coal executive Hugh Caperton argued that Benjamin’s action violated his right to a fair hearing in an impartial court, saying that the 14th Amendment due process clause required Benjamin not to rule in a case involving such a significant benefactor.

 

His argument was supported by an unprecedented array of groups, including 27 retired state Supreme Court justices, business organizations that included Wal-Mart, Intel, Pepsi and Lockheed-Martin, and civic reform and legal affairs groups, including the American Bar Association.

 

“Polls show that three Americans in four believe that campaign spending can influence courtroom decisions,” said Brandenburg, who noted that $200 million was spent on state Supreme Court elections from 2000-08, more than double the $85.4 million spent in the entire 1990s. “Without measures to keep courts fair and impartial, spending to elect judges will continue to run away, and public trust will continue to erode.”

 

Although most states have rules calling on judges to recuse themselves when there might be just an appearance of bias, today’s ruling is the first time that the Supreme Court has said such rules must in some cases be applied to cases of extreme election spending.

 

State Supreme Courts in Michigan and Wisconsin already are reviewing proposals that could redefine when judges should step aside from cases involving campaign backers.

 

“The arena now shifts to state Supreme Courts, which have the power to reform recusal rules to restore public confidence,” Brandenburg said. “Responsible reforms at the state level will be pursued with greater vigor than ever.”

 

For further information on the Caperton v. Massey case, see the Caperton resource pages at the Brennan Center for Justice and the Justice at Stake Campaign. Justice at Stake is a nonpartisan national partnership that promotes reforms to keep courts fair and impartial.