The Buying of the Bench

By Shelia, Kaplan; Davidson, Zoe | The Nation, January 26, 1998 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

The Buying of the Bench


Shelia, Kaplan, Davidson, Zoe, The Nation


The campaign fundraising scandal has drawn new attention to the way moneyed interests buy political favors in Washington. But far from the nation's capital, many of these same donors operate unchecked in a venue that may prove more disturbing than the Lincoln Bedroom: the state courts. In the thirty-nine states that elect judges at some level, the cost of judicial races is rising at least as fast as that of either Congressional races or presidential campaigns, as candidates for the bench pay for sophisticated ads, polls and consultants. A recent study by the California Commission on the Courts found that the cost of the average superior court race in the Los Angeles area more than doubled every year, increasing twenty-two-fold from 1976 to 1994. In Washington State, winners in 1980 spent between $30,000 and $50,000; by 1995 winners spent at least $150,000. In North Carolina, the American Judicature Society reported that the biggest spender for the Supreme Court in 1988 paid $90,330; by 1994 it was $241,709.

Fueling these campaigns is an influx of money from the tobacco industry, casinos, insurance companies, doctors and businesses. Upping the ante are defense lawyers and trial lawyers, along with unions and, recently, the religious right (in fact, John Dowless, executive director of the Christian Coalition of Florida, considers judicial elections "the next hot-button issue" for his group). It adds up to a system of justice in which judges are compromised by the time they take the bench--and those who are perceived as unsympathetic to whichever interest group has the most money that year often end up simply kicked out of office. The Nation's analysis of campaign contributions in 1996 state Supreme Court races has found:

[sections] In Texas, Chief Justice Thomas Phillips, first elected in 1988 on a campaign finance reform platform, raised $486,809 of his 1996 re-election funds from corporate defense lawyers; $213,016 from energy and natural-resource companies; and $159,498 from finance, insurance and real estate firms.

[sections] In Ohio, Justice Evelyn Stratton raised $74,885 from finance, insurance and real estate firms; $134,900 from lawyers and lobbyists, most of whom represent big business before the court; and $16,476 from medical interests. The law firm that handled her campaign represents the tobacco industry in a case bound for her court. Stratton received the Ohio Chamber of Commerce's highest pro-business rating.

[sections] In a notorious Alabama race, businesses determined to defeat incumbent Justice Kenneth Ingraham contributed more than $668,704 to opponent Harold See.

[sections] In Nevada, Justice William Maupin received more than $80,000 from casinos and gambling interests, much of it while ruling favorably on a land mark casino case.

[sections] In Pennsylvania, Justice Russell Nigro reaped more than $458,473, from lawyers, mostly the plaintiffs bar, in one of the few cases in 1996 in which they outspent the corporate contributors and defense lawyers.

[sections] In West Virginia, Justice Elliot Maynard's largest contributors were coal companies and their employees, among them A.T. Massey Coal Company, Golden Chance Coal Company and the lawyers who represent them.

"I can't think of a clearer conflict of interest than a judge taking cash from plaintiffs or defendants," says Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, which monitors government ethics. "That's about as direct a conflict of interest as we can have in our political system. The idea that a judge could take cash from them and issue an `objective' ruling is complete hogwash."

Lewis's opinion is echoed by legal and civic organizations ranging from the American Bar Association (A.B.A.) to the American Judicature Society (A.J.S.) to the Fund for Modern Courts. But these groups can only make recommendations. Effecting change--setting spending caps for candidates, putting limits on donations, providing free advertising--is up to the states.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

The Buying of the Bench
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?