Report: Campaign contributions and ad spending threaten judicial independence
Spending on state Supreme Court elections has more than doubled in the past decade, from $83.3 million in 1990-1999 to $206.9 million in 2000-2009, and deep-pocketed special interests play a dominant role in choosing state jurists, according to a report released yesterday by the Justice at Stake Campaign, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the National Institute on Money in State Politics.
For more than a decade, partisans and special interests of all stripes have grown more organized in their efforts to tilt the scales of justice their way. This surge in spending—much of it funneled through secret channels—has fundamentally transformed state Supreme Court elections in the 22 states that hold at least some competitive elections for these seats.
The report, “The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2000-2009: Decade of Change,” is the first comprehensive study of spending in judicial elections over the past decade. It highlights the fundraising and spending explosion over the past decade, the increase in special-interest group funded attack ads, who has been trying to influence changes on the bench, the impact recent litigation has had on judicial independence and what reforms may be on the horizon. The report uses top 10 lists to diagram the most notorious campaign contributors and ad spenders in high court elections.
All five Midwest Democracy Network states—Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin—elect judges to their state high court.
Money raised to finance high court elections
Three Network states make the study’s top 10 list for most money raised to finance state Supreme Court elections throughout 2000-2009:
- Ohio ranked third - 20 candidates raised $20,655,924
- Illinois ranked fourth - 44 candidates raised $19,197,826
- Michigan ranked sixth - 34 candidates raised $10,837,071
Of the remaining two Network states, Wisconsin ranked 11th (24 candidates raised $6,691,852) and Minnesota ranked 19th (20 candidates raised $939,122).
A select group of campaign contributors, which the report tags “super spenders,” is outgunning small donors. In the 29 costliest elections in 10 states, the top five spenders each averaged $473,000 per election to install judges of their choice, while all other contributors averaged only $850 apiece. The top contributors to state high court elections nationwide throughout 2000-2009 include:
- U.S. Chamber/Ohio Affiliates - $7,609,168
- Alabama Democratic Party - $5,460,117
- Business Council of Alabama - $4,633,534
- Illinois Democratic Party - $3,765,920
- Michigan Chamber of Commerce - $3,040,105
- Don Blankenship - $2,981,207
- Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee - $2,699,568
- Michigan Democratic Party - $2,686,263
- Pennsylvania Republican Party - $2,667,834
- Michigan Republican Party - $2,637,561
Illinois continues to hold the national record for a two-candidate high court race. The 2004 race between Lloyd Krameier and Gordon Maag, according to the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, found the two candidates raised $9.3 million.
Money spent on high court elections
Four Network states appear in the study’s top 10 list for most money spent on state Supreme Court races throughout 2000-2009:
- Ohio ranked second with $29.8 million spent
- Illinois ranked fifth with $20.6 million
- Michigan ranked sixth with $12 million spent
- Wisconsin sits at seventh with $11.5 million spent
The rise of ad spending
A TV spending arms race continues to escalate, creating a need for money only special interests can satisfy. In 2007-08, $26.6 million was spent on Supreme Court TV ads, the costliest two-year ad cycle since tracking began in 2000.
For the 2000-2009 decade, supreme court candidates, special-interest groups and political parties spent an estimated $93.6 million on TV ads.
Four Network states appear in the study’s top 10 list for most money spent on television advertising in state Supreme Court races throughout 2000-2009.
- Ohio ranked first with TV ad spending at $21,364,846
- Michigan ranked third with TV ad spending at $10,982,950
- Wisconsin ranked fifth with TV ad spending at $7,332,914
- Illinois ranked sixth with TV ad spending at $7,141,130
Party committees and outside groups played a significant role in supporting this TV ad boom. The top 12 television ad spenders include:
- U.S. Chamber/Ohio affiliates - $4,258,822
- Michigan Chamber - $2,875,965
- Illinois Democratic Party - $2,519,473
- Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce - $2,012,748
- Michigan Democratic Party - $1,863,189
- Center for Individual Freedom - $1,824,140
- Illinois Republican Party - $1,816,705
- Greater Wisconsin Committee - $1,736,535
- Pennsylvania Republican Party - $1,559,280
- Citizens for an Independent Court - $1,543,478
- Safety and Prosperity Coalition - $1,321,494
- American Taxpayers Alliance - $1,293,080
On example of special interest spending on TV ad is the 2008 Wisconsin Supreme Court race between incumbent Louis Butler and lower court judge Mike Gableman. Interest groups were responsible for almost 90 percent of the $3 million spent on ads. Gableman won the election by two percentage points, but the Wisconsin Judicial Commission alleged an advertisement run by Gableman “made knowingly with reckless disregard for truth.”
Midwest leads the way in reforms
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled judges are required to step aside from cases involving their largest funders. While the Caperton v. Massey decision requires recusal in the most extreme cases and elevated the discussion about fair and impartial courts, it did not solve all the challenges facing the state high courts.
According to the report, in 2009 “Michigan’s Supreme Court became the nation’s first court, after the Caperton decision, to significantly strengthen state recusal rules. It also became the first high court ever to say individual justices could be ordered, by a vote of fellow justices, to step aside from cases where ethical conflicts had been demonstrated.”
Wisconsin followed suit a month later by becoming the third state in the country to adopt public financing for high court elections.
State Profiles
Articles
Michigan supreme court races sure to draw big spenders, study says - Detroit Free Press
Ohio justices ‘for sale? - Cincinnati.com
Report ranks Wisconsin second in nation for judicial race spending - The Cap Times
Too Much Money Going To State Court Races - NPR
Special-interest spending surges in state Supreme Court campaigns - Washington Post
