Litigation

JAS Court Brief Defends Public Finance Provision

By Peter Hardin

The Justice at Stake Campaign, warning that a “deluge of special interest money is eroding public trust in America’s courts,” is urging the Supreme Court to uphold a provision of many public campaign financing laws.

An amicus brief filed by Justice at Stake with the Supreme Court this week addressed a nationally watched case from Arizona, entitled McComish v. Bennett.

The brief, signed by 13 former state supreme court justices and a state trial court judge, cautions that elected courts would be gravely threatened by outside influence if the provision is struck down.

Four states have adopted voluntary public financing of appellate court elections, and each has adopted the kind of “trigger funds” provision challenged in McComish. It furnishes extra dollars to publicly financed candidates running against opponents who exceed specified spending limits. In its brief, JAS defended the provision:

“Public financing eliminates the need for judges to ‘dial for dollars’ from major contributors, many of whom appear before them in court. It is therefore one of the most powerful reforms in shielding courts from special-interest influence.”

The four states with public financing of appellate court elections are North Carolina, New Mexico, Wisconsin and West Virginia. Their laws could be affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling in McComish.

Bert Brandenburg, JAS executive director, said in a press release that public financing laws “have bolstered trust in state courts, and they have greatly reduced pressure on elected state judges to seek money from special interests.” Brandenburg added, “They let judges talk to voters instead of donors, and protect the right of Americans to a fair day in court.”

The McComish case is not limited to elections of judges (for background, see Gavel Grab). But as spending on judicial elections has soared in the past decade, public financing has become an important reform to guard against special interest influence in the courtroom.

State high court candidates raised $206.9 million in the decade between 2000 and 2009, more than double the $83.3 million raised in the 1990s.

Arizona’s law permits additional public funding for candidates when opposition spending exceeds specified amounts. Critics have challenged the constitutionality of the provision, contending that giving taxpayer matching funds to qualifying candidates amounts to a penalty on their privately funded opponents? speech.

“In states where it has been used,” the JAS amicus brief responded, “there is no evidence that public financing has chilled anyone’s free speech rights.” The brief added, “There is evidence however, that candidates and voters alike find that public financing of judicial elections provides an indispensable mechanism for combating the erosion of trust in America’s courts.”

The JAS amicus brief noted that public opinion polls, including one released this week from North Carolina (see Gavel Grab), show that three out of four Americans say campaign contributions to judicial candidates affect courtroom decisions.

To learn more about public financing as a court election reform, check out Justice at Stake’s issues page on the topic.

Full post as published by The Gavel on February 23, 2011 (boomark / email).