Over the weekend, the New York Times ran a editorial on a topic that often gets overlooked but is quickly becoming a major concern for a host of public interest organizations that count on judicial fairness: the megabucks flowing into judicial elections from special interests. The most egregious example recently, that the Times highlights, was the CEO of a major coal company bankrolling a state Supreme Court justice's electoral campaign, and then the justice turning around and casting the deciding vote to vacate a $50 million verdict against the CEO's company.
the deciding vote was cast by Justice Brent Benjamin. He refused to recuse himself despite the $3 million that Mr. Blankenship spent to get him elected.
Judicial neutrality and the appearance of neutrality are basic elements of due process. Not every contribution to a judicial campaign triggers due process concerns significant enough to require recusal, but Mr. Blankenship's outsized campaign expenditures surely did.
Across the country, state courts are drowning in a sea of special-interest campaign money. The American Bar Association has good standards for judicial recusal, which nearly every state court system and the federal judiciary have adopted.
Unfortunately, compliance is spotty. Situations like the Massey Energy case create an unmistakable impression that justice is for sale.
I'm no money manager, but I'm pretty sure that the $50 million, a 1,667% return on $3 million invested in campaign contributions, is what you'd call a "good return on your investment."
Unless you're invested in a healthy democracy and a fair, impartial judicial system. Then you'd just call that absurd and senseless and you'd push for public financing of judicial races, as we're doing.
You are not logged in.
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.
