Litigation

JAS Featured in Report on Big Money in Judicial Elections

By Peter Hardin

Skeptics play down the significance of Citizens United. But data from state-level judicial elections show major political expenditures by corporations and real cause for concern, the National Journal reports in an article that prominently cites the Justice at Stake Campaign.

In an article entitled “Judicial Elections Draw Big Money,” the magazine draws heavily on JAS research showing a huge increase in judicial campaign fundraising, from  $83.3 million raised between 1990 and 1999 to $206.4 million raised between 2000 and 2009. In the 2007-08 cycle, campaign spending in state Supreme Court elections topped $45 million, according to JAS.

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in January lifted key restraints on corporate and union funding of independent political expenditures. Free speech advocates have insisted that critics’ alarms over Citizens United are misplaced and have pointed to the experience of 26 states that allowed unlimited corporate political spending.

The National Journal article mines the JAS data to find plenty of evidence that corporations already have actively pursued political expenditures:

“[A] closer look at state-level elections suggests that independent political expenditures by corporations, unions and other special interests are substantial. This is particularly true in judicial elections, which have gotten dramatically costlier, nastier and more controversial over the past decade. The Citizens United ruling may impact judicial races even more drastically than federal elections, some experts argue.”

And the magazine quotes JAS communications director Charles Hall to underscore the corporate influence at play, including some 30 percent of the money raised in the 2000-2009 period that had “some links” to the corporate sector. “Certainly in judicial elections, corporate spending has been one of the big, driving forces,” Hall told National Journal.

In addition, Hall noted that in the 2007-08 election cycle, independent groups spent some $12.6 million in state Supreme Court elections. “The skyrocketing use of these independent campaigns utterly contradicts claims that there hasn’t been much corporate spending in these elections,” Hall said.

The article also discusses concerns raised by both retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and more recently, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg about problems that large campaign expenditures pose for an independent judiciary. And it recaps reforms recently enacted in such states as West Virginia and Wisconsin to preserve public confidence in impartial courts.

The article points out that according to JAS, overall spending on judicial races in Wisconsin–one of the most expensive states–totaled  $8.5 million in the 2007-08 election cycle. According to a reform activist, more than $2 million of that came from one business-backed group. The article concludes that skeptics don’t seem to have all the facts on their side:

“With the Citizens United ruling, such corporate expenditures in judicial races in Wisconsin and elsewhere are expected to increase. Over time, the role of corporate political expenditures — in judicial elections, at least — may become harder to deny.”

You can learn more about Citizens United from Gavel Grab and from Justice at Stake’s amicus brief in the case or press release about the decision.

Full post as published by The Gavel on April 12, 2010 (boomark / email).