May 16 2008

“The Poisonous Effect of Money on Justice”

Published by K.O. at 7:03 am under Judges, Opinion, Our Perspective

In a May 6th editorial, the Austin American-Statesman discussed a Texas Supreme Court ruling in favor of builder Bob Perry, who had donated thousands of dollars to the campaigns of every justice on the court. The paper concluded that “it is impossible not to be cynical about the poisonous effect of money on justice.”

When thousands of dollars are flowing to judicial candidates, their fairness and impartiality are in doubt. And a ruling like the one favoring a huge donor like Perry undermines the ideal of judicial integrity, even if the decision is on sound legal footing.

The American-Statesman recognizes that court rulings in favor of big campaign donors, no matter how correct or just, are tainted with questions and uncertainty about whether the money influenced the decision. This undermines public confidence in the courts.

Merit Selection solves this dilemma. It gets judges out of the fundraising business. It will help ensure that Pennsylvania’s appellate judges can’t be accused of favoring campaign donors in their decisions. Such accusations have recently been made in West Virginia, and now in Texas. Switching to Merit Selection of Pennsylvania’s appellate judges will make sure that can’t happen here.

Tags: , , , , ,

One Response to ““The Poisonous Effect of Money on Justice””

  1. […] we posted about a Texas Supreme Court decision that was drawing headlines because all nine of the justices had accepted campaign contributions […]

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply