Spending on high court races forced into the public spotlight

Perhaps it was the foreword writ- ten by retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor that made it a top story last week around the country. But regardless of the reason, the study detailing the influence of special interest campaign spending in state supreme court races is noteworthy.

Here’s the bottom line of the analysis of the comprehensive data during the period 2000 to 2009: Fund raising more than doubled, from $83.3 million in the 1990s, to $206.9 million in the past decade.

“The crisis of confidence in the judiciary is real and growing,” Justice O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, warned in her foreword. “Left unaddressed, the perception that justice is for sale will undermine the rule of law that the courts are supposed to uphold.”

It is significant that O’Connor was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan, who in death as in life is considered by many to be the soul of the Republican Party.

“The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2000-2009: Decade of Change” was co-authored by the Justice at Stake Campaign, the National Institute on Money in State Politics and The Brennen Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

It is also noteworthy that Ohio ranked 2nd nationally in Supreme Court campaign spending with $29.8 million.

According to an article in the Dayton Daily News, overall spending in Ohio state supreme court races between 2000 and 2009 totaled more than $29.8 million.

The top spenders in court races were: the U.S, Chamber of Commerce/Ohio affiliates, $7.6 million; Citizens for an Independent Court, $1.5 million; and, the Ohio Democratic Party, almost $1.3 million.

The issue of money and the courts is not new. Indeed, in 2000, we criticized then Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer for not speaking out forcefully during that year’s general election when millions of dollars were spent by business and insurance interests outside Ohio to oust Justice Alice Robie Resnick.

The attacks by any measure against Resnick were vicious and triggered a state and national discussion about whether merit selection of judges was a better system than election.

Ohioans have voted against merit selection, but with the latest report showing that special interests are determined to tip the scales of justice, a renewed focus on the issue is timely and necessary.

Indeed, during his tenure on the court, Moyer, who died four months ago, pushed for studies on merit selection.

Floodgates open

But the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that threw open the floodgates to corporations and labor unions to contribute to political candidates is a game changer.

Can the public be assured the courts will remain fair and independent when money is flowing like water?

Here’s how Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennen Center for Justice, characterized the role of money:

“We find many John Grisham-style instances where special interests and even litigants pour funds into races trying to tilt the scales of justice their way. The recent Supreme Court ruling, Citizens United, likely will make matters worse.”

There is no doubt that the current money-based system of filling state supreme court seats has fed public cynicism and distrust of the judicial system. It’s time — again — for an intelligent, apolitical, public discussion.