Again
in the 2010 legislative session, Washington Public Campaigns
is supporting legislation to create a program of optional
public financing for state supreme court races. The bills are:
In the House: HB 1738 • In
the Senate: SB 5912
Details at: www.leg.wa.gov/legislature
— click on the tab
"Bill Search," and enter the relevant bill number
(#).
Sponsors
of the judicial bills (Download printable PDF)
We urge WPC supporters in every district
to ask your legislators to endorse and support public financing
for supreme court races. We're also engaged in an educational
campaign, to bring attention to this issue. We hope for support
for this effort from a wide array of organizations, working
in coalition.
Justice through our courts must be blind and impartial
- and never appear to be influenced by campaign contributions
from any private special interest.
So long as judges are elected, funding for their campaigns
should be blind or available through a public program as an
option. It's time to eliminate private campaign contributions
as a predominant method to fund judicial campaigns.
What
if … in a major lawsuit involving tens of millions of dollars,
a supreme court justice ruled in favor of the defendant who
had contributed millions to his campaign for election to the
court?
What if a study showed that in cases where litigants have
made campaign contributions, judges have ruled in their favor
significantly more often than when no campaign contributions
were involved?
Blind justice? Independent courts? Or justice, skewed by campaign
contributions?
Both of these "what if's" are true. It's not John
Grisham fiction. In West Virginia, a supreme court justice refused
to recuse himself from a court case where one party to the lawsuit
had previously arranged over $3 million in contributions to
his campaign—and the justice then ruled in favor of that
litigant! The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review the
matter, and we are waiting to hear if the Supreme Court will
take the case—to clarify when judges must recuse themselves
due to perceived (and perhaps real) influence by private campaign
contributions. DETAILS
A
study of case rulings by the Louisiana Supreme Court over a
14-year period showed justices voted in favor of campaign
contributors—plaintiffs or defendants—significantly
more often than when no contributions were involved. And among
some justices, higher contributions correlated with even more
frequent favorable rulings.
In
Washington State in 2006, over $4 million was spent by special
interests - contributions directly to candidates' campaigns
($1.46 million) and contributions to independent ads and voter
persuasion activities ($2.73 million)—in attempt to influence
the outcome of that year's supreme court races.
In this year's supreme court races, contributions are lower—but
it's probably temporary and due to other campaigns (for governor,
etc.) that are tapping the bank accounts of special interest
donors. Because of the power and influence of the supreme court,
we can expect record-setting special-interest campaign contributions
and heated races to come roaring back in 2010—unless we
take action.
Independence and impartiality of our state supreme court is
a serious matter that should concern every Washington state
resident. Think of the issues that arise before the court: citizen
initiatives that are ruled in or out; worker rights and safety;
water policy; land-use and growth management:tax policy; and
much more. Indeed, the court can approve or strike down laws
that are enacted, and decide lawsuits involving tens of millions
of dollars of public as well as private funds.
It's
time to demand that public financing be available for campaigns
for the Washington State Supreme Court—so that judicial
candidates can run without the appearance of special interest
influence. Otherwise, how can we be sure the court is impartial?
In the 2010 legislative session, WPC will push for public
financing of state supreme court campaigns.
We begin now—because we want this issue to be raised
among candidates and incumbents who are actively campaigning
for election or re-election to the state legislature.
And
we encourage our WashClean supporters all over the state to
ask legislative candidates in your legislative district: Will
you support legislation to create a program of voluntary public
financing of campaigns for the state supreme court?
On our website Resources page, we've posted information and
links to articles, reports and data. Click
here
The case for public financing for judicial races is compelling.
Several states offer public campaign financing for state supreme
court races: North
Carolina in 2002, New
Mexico in 2007, and Wisconsin
in 2009. These programs are working. Public financing is always
voluntary for candidates - they can still run with traditional
private financing—but increasingly popular among candidates
and voters alike.
We know there are details to be worked out for any program
to be proposed and adopted in Washington state, and we will
participate in those deliberations. But let's not get stuck
in the weeds while working out details. Let's achieve public
financing for campaigns to our state's highest court, in 2010.
With an informed, focused effort—an educational campaign
for the public, and a citizens' lobbying campaign directed at
our legislators—we can make history in Washington state
to guarantee the impartiality of our state supreme court.
Please join us in this effort. Become informed, spread
the word, join the grassroots movement and let your voice be
heard among lawmakers. Pulling together, we can move mountains.
And bookmark this page of our website. We'll be adding much
more, in the coming weeks and months, including summaries of
how public financing for judicial races
works in North Carolina and elsewhere.
~ Craig Salins
News and Commentary
