judgesonmerit.org

Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts today announced that the 2009 Supreme Court election between Republican Joan Orie Melvin (the winning candidate) and Democrat Jack Panella is likely to set new fundraising and spending records.  The final numbers are not yet in, as candidates can continue to raise funds until the end of the year.  But we can now report that the Supreme Court election cost at least $4.5 million, and PMC believes the total is significantly higher.

PMC’s press release documents fundraising and spending by the candidates’ campaigns, but notes that although they together raised and spent over $3.6 million, that is not the whole money story.  Instead, we found it necessary to research who else was spending money on the election.

The answer was political bodies, incuding the state Republican Party, the state Democratic Party, and the Republican Senate Committee.  In fact, the state Republican Party directly funded Judge Orie Melvin’s television campaign, to the tune of at least $975,849.  This means the state Party outspent the candidate’s own campaign.

Reports also reveal that from January 1, 2009 until November 23, 2009, the state Republican Party spent at least four million more and the state Democratic Party spent close to $2 million. Although the parties were not required to identify the candidates on whom they spent money, it seems reasonable to assume that a good portion of that six million dollars was directed to the Supreme Court election.

Pennsylvania had the nation’s most expensive Supreme Court elections in the 2007-08 election cycle, and the available data is leading elections experts to predict that Pennsylvania will again earn that title for 2009-10.   As PMC’s Lynn Marks explained, “Pennsylvanians should not take pride in leading the nation in spending for judicial elections.  Each dollar raised and spent raises yet another doubt in voters’ minds about whether or not justice is for sale.”

Sometimes, even good intentions and good ideas don’t actually add up to be all that good.  Take the pledge made by the campaign of Arkansas Appeals Court Judge Karen Baker who is now running for a seat on her state’s Supreme Court.  The ArkansasTimes reports on its blog that Judge Baker “won’t accept campaign contributions from lawyers who practice before her through her campaign to win a state Supreme Court vacancy.”

Let’s take a closer look.  It’s not really clear whose money will be turned away.  Is it lawyers practicing before the judge now, or lawyers practicing before the Supreme Court now?  The campaign itself admits it is “impossible to predict the future,” and that recusal may be warranted if a donor later appears before the judge.  And, as the report points out, the pledge “does not mean Baker won’t accept contributions from other lawyers, including those who might share firms and offices with people who practice before her or lawyers who’ve been before her in the past.”

The blog opines that this is a tactical move by the campaign: trying to convert anticipated low fundraising into a statement of reform.  This may be an unfair characterization; perhaps the judge was motivated by only the best intentions. But that doesn’t change the fact that she may still take contributions that can create potential conflicts.

The blog also notes that a more appealing position would be for a candidate to turn away all donations from lawyers. We believe there’s an even better solution to the issue of campaign fundraising: get judges out of the fundraising business altogether. Stop the flow of money to judicial candidates from lawyers, law firms, businesses, unions and individuals who litigate in the state courts.  Merit Selection is the way to do this.

Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts broke the news earlier today that the current Supreme Court race has set a new fundraising record. Judge Jack Panella has raised at least $2,350,633 to date. This edges out the previous record set in 2007 by now Justice Seamus McCaffery. See the Press Release here. You can find the candidates’ finance reports on the PA Dept. of State’s Campaign Finance Reporting page (NOTE: Judge Panella’s cycle 5 reports are not yet on the website).

The candidates’ war chests may continue to rise after the election, as they have until the end of the year to raise money for their campaigns. As a point of reference, in the 2007 race, the two winning candidates, Justices McCaffery and Todd, raised over $330,000 and over $650,000, respectively, in the two reporting cycles after the election. Of the two losing candidates, one raised over $340,000, and the other raised just under $100,000.

This is the opening for Sunday’s op-ed in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette by Lynn Marks and Shira Goodman of PMC:

The O’Jays famously sang, “Money, money, money, money. Some people got to have it. Hey, hey, hey. Some people really need it.” This is certainly true of statewide judicial candidates in Pennsylvania.

Marks and Goodman explain that to run a state-wide campaign requires a lot of money, and the money usually comes from lawyers, lawfirms, unions and businesses that frequently litigate in the state appellate court system. “They give because they care about who runs the courts in which they pursue their interests.” The op-ed goes on to explain why this seemingly logical scenario creates problems: it creates a perception that campaign contributions affect decision-making in the courtroom.

The abiding symbol of our courts is the statue of Justice blindfolded, signifying that judges should not be swayed by personal bias, popular opinion, political expediency or the identity of the parties appearing before them. A judge’s personal relationships and political connections should have no influence on how cases are decided. Electing judges undermines this image. The public perceives a judge with eyes wide open, pockets bulging with campaign cash and knowledge of where the cash came from.

Even though the vast majority of judges are sincere when they explain that campaign contributions don’t affect how they decide cases, the public understandably has trouble believing this. It looks like justice is for sale to the biggest campaign contributors.

Marks and Goodman then explain that the current Supreme Court race — with the candidates running an ad war and fighting about who took contributions from what entity — is only confirming for the public the poisonous influence of money in the judicial selection system.  There is only one answer: “Enough is enough. It’s time to get judges out of the fund-raising business and to put the blindfold back on. The way to achieve this is to stop electing appellate court judges.”

All of a sudden, other people seem to be doing our work for us, that is alerting the public to the evils of money in judicial elections.  Supreme Court candidates are challenging each other about campaign contributions, and the media is all over the story.  (Check out this story on NPR’s WHYY and articles in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, The Philadelphia Inquirer/AP, Capitolwire (subscription required), and Allentown’s The Morning Call). So, let’s talk about money.

It’s a given that to run a statewide campaign for the appellate courts, you need money.  There are sixty-seven counties in Pennsylvania, and candidates try to reach most, if not all of them.  This requires travel, television ads, radio spots, lawn signs and a good staff.  That all costs money.  Where’s the money coming from? Generally, the big givers to judicial campaigns are those who frequently litigate in the state court system: lawyers, law firms, organized groups of lawyers or bar associations, unions, and businesses.

The trouble is, these folks and entities will later appear before the judges their money helped to elect.  Who finds this troubling?  The public does — the regular folks who sometimes find themselves in court and who don’t give to judicial campaigns.  These folks are sitting in courtrooms worried that their opponents or their opponents’ lawyers have contributed to the judge’s election campaign.  This should be the last thing people in court have to worry about.  But when you elect judges, this is part of the package.

The abiding image for our courts is the statue of Justice blindfolded, signifying that judges are not swayed by personal bias, popular opinion, political expediency, or the identity of the parties.  Electing judges undermines that image.  Instead, the public imagines a judge with eyes wide open, pockets bulging with campaign cash, and knowledge of where the cash came from.

The candidates for Supreme Court are not helping to repair this image. They are fighting about who received more money from which donors. Judge Orie Melvin charges that Judge Panella received more than  $1,000,000 from the Committee for a Better Tomorrow, the political action committee of the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers.  Judge Panella retorts that Judge Orie Melvin accepted $125,000 from the same PAC and has received large donations from Republican PACs as well.

One million dollars is a lot of money, but $125,000 is nothing to sneeze at, as my nine year old son has pointed out.  Anyone coming in to court opposing someone who contributed to this PAC might justifiably be concerned about either Judge Panella or Judge Orie Melvin.  It’s not the size of the donation, it’s the fact of the donation.

The candidates’ dispute acknowledges that campaign money creates unfavorable perceptions and leads the public to believe justice is for sale.  Their debate about money is not helping to ease the public’s mind, but rather is confirming fears that campaign cash does indeed matter long after the election is over and the judge is sitting in the courtroom.

Enough is enough. It’s time to get judges out of the fundraising business and to put the blindfold back on.  Merit Selection is the answer.

As we reported earlier this month, an editorial in the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal/New Era “salute[d] the effort” to bring Merit Selection to the Pennsylvania appellate courts.  In response, PMC submitted a letter affirming that now is the time to act:

With the scandals in the Luzerne County court system, the continuing flow of special interest money into state court elections, and the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in October (in the Citizens United case) that corporations have a fundamental right to spend freely on state elections, it’s high time for a groundswell of Pennsylvania voices to let our leaders know we want our judges selected by their qualifications, not by a popularity contest and not by a fundraising arms race.

We hope Pennsylvanians will heed the call and make their voices heard.

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Citizens United v. FEC. We reported earlier that we joined Justice At Stake and 18 partners in submitting an amici brief in the case, which focuses on restrictions on corporate contributions in elections.  Gavel Grab has extensive coverage of the argument here.

Justice At Stake Executive Director Bert Brandenburg offers an interesting commentary about the case on the blog of the American Constitution Society.  Brandenburg notes:

Just three months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court reached a historic conclusion in Caperton v. Massey. The majority held that the Constitution sets limits on how much special interests can tilt the scales of justice, by requiring judges to step aside in certain case involving their supporters.

Just three months later, Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, the campaign finance case argued today, has seemed to float in an alternate universe. . . .

A comparison of the cases is revealing. While Caperton focused on the courts, its gritty facts should strip away any glossy illusions about what will happen if corporate and union treasuries are turned into private campaign war chests.

Brandenburg goes on to compare the arguments made in both cases, noting that former Solicitor General Ted Olson who argued on behalf of Caperton earlier this year at that time opined that “‘The improper appearance created by money in judicial elections is one of the most important issues facing our judicial system today.’” Yesterday, Olson argued on behalf of Citizens United and opined that “with independent groups, ‘there is less of a threat of corruption because there is no quid pro quo.’”  Brandenburg notes that it is very difficult to square these positions and concludes by posing this chilling hypothetical:

[T]hree Americans in four believe campaign cash affects courtroom decisions. If the federal ban is struck down, similar state laws will be next.

If anyone wonders whether that will have a real-world effect, they should look at Caperton once more and ask this: What if Don Blankenship, the coal executive with litigation in West Virginia, hadn’t been forced to spend from his own pocket? What if he could have just cut a company check to underwrite an election? And what if an unwise ruling makes that the norm, not the exception?

As we wait for a decision in Citizens United, it might be a good time to think about how much worse the situation could become and to ask again why we continue to select judges by a process that requires them to raise campaign funds from individuals and entities likely to appear before them in the future.

The Star News of Wilmington, North Carolina reports that Superior Court (trial level court in North Carolina) Judge Jay Hockenbury will run for reelection next year but will not accept campaign contributions:

The judge, a 61-year-old Republican in a mostly Democratic district, said contributions from attorneys, developers or others with special interests could give the impression of influence over a judicial decision. Hockenbury said it’s never been an issue, nor does he want it to be.

Although the judge did raise money in his previous campaigns, he has decided not to this time around.  It’s interesting to note that in his initial election, Judge Hockenbury raised about $22,000.  So, we’re not talking about Caperton-size contributions here.  But still, the judge recognized that the role of money in judicial elections creates dangerous perceptions.

Judge Hockenbury has chosen one solution to the problem of money in judicial elections. But we think a broader, systemic solution that would get judges out of the fundraising business altogether would be even better.

Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer spoke out strongly against the poisonous influence of money in judicial elections during a recent address to the Columbus Metropolitan Club.  Dispatch Politics, a division of the Columbus Dispatch, reports that Chief Justice Moyer urged: “‘We must reduce the role of fundraising in judicial campaigns . . . It’s corrosive.’”

He further noted that the money problem undermines confidence in the judiciary and courts across the board, noting that “polls have shown that most people — and even many judges — believe that rulings are influenced by campaign contributions.” This is not new information, but when the Chief Justice takes note of this data, people should listen carefully.

Chief Justice Moyer promoted a Merit Selection system in which the Governor selects a candidate from a field of three recommended by a nominating commission.  Judges selected this way would stand in uncontested retention elections.

We hope that people in Ohio — and Pennsylvania — will heed Chief Justice Moyer’s call for reform.

Attorney Peter Vaira’s op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer details recent troubles plaguing Pennsylvania’s court system and offers some thoughts on causation:

Is this Huey Long’s Louisiana? What is behind these events? Part of the answer is Pennsylvania’s county government system. Each county has its own courts, its own court rules, and often its own unwritten procedures. Nor does the state attorney general have any control over county prosecutors.

Another problem is that all judges run for election. This creates a system of subtle (and often not-so-subtle) IOUs, especially at the county-court level.

All of this can foster localized criminal justice and make the courts insiders’ forums.

Vaira’s tag that the judicial election system is “a system of ious” echoes increasing public concern about the influence campaign contributions have on judges.  Increasingly, the public has come to believe that we have a system in which justice may be “for sale” to campaign contributors.

This is simply an unacceptable situation.  To restore public confidence in our courts and judiciary, we must get judges out of the fundraising business.