The Best Justice That Money Can Buy

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,930
Sen. Russ Feingold has called the glut of unlimited campaign contributions nothing more than “legalized bribery.” And who among his legislative colleagues deserves to be hit with this denunciation? “Not me,” say Max Baucus, the largest single recipient of health industry funds, and Joe Lieberman, the senator from Aetna Insurance, and, for that matter, just about all of the rest of Congress.

In June 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the intended effects of campaign contributions when it ruled in Caperton v. Massey that a West Virginia judge who failed to recuse himself had run a “serious risk of actual bias” because a person with a personal stake in the case had acquired “significant and disproportionate influence” over the judge by having raised funds for him and directing his election campaign. The issue, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court, “centers on the contribution’s relative size in comparison to the total amount of money contributed to the campaign, the total amount spent in the election, and the apparent effect such contribution had on the outcome of the election.”

One-time U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, now counsel for many conservative causes, insisted in Caperton that the “improper appearance” of campaign money in judicial elections was critical. “A line needs to be drawn,” he said, “to prevent a judge from hearing cases involving a person who has made massive campaign contributions to benefit the judge.”

Now comes Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, which, in a 4-3 vote, has drawn a different line and adopted a rule stipulating that campaign contributions, endorsements and paid ads are not enough to force recusal. The majority acted to “send a message that making lawful contributions is not a dishonorable thing to do and it’s not a dishonorable thing to receive.”

In a hearing on the ruling, the League of Women Voters and a retired associate justice proposed that recusal be triggered if a judge had received a contribution of more than $1,000 from a single source. In the end, two prominent lobbying groups, the Wisconsin Realtors Association (WRA) and the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce Association (WMC), persuaded the court that unlimited contributions are protected “free speech.” Two of the four judges of the Wisconsin Supreme Court are beneficiaries of the WRA and WMC’s largesse.


lg.php

Wisconsin voters have seen John Grisham’s novel “The Appeal” come to life. The book portrays powerful vested interests that wage a deceitful campaign in an unnamed state, pouring millions of dollars into successfully electing a Supreme Court justice, who then works to overturn an important lower court environmental ruling. The grease of corruption pervades Grisham’s imaginary state.


Wisconsin, which likes to see itself in the mirror of its century-old tradition of squeaky-clean progressive government, has had two Supreme Court elections in recent years, contests marked by the influx of WMC money. The manufacturers and commerce group carefully selected unknown, quite obscure lower court judges Annette Ziegler and Michael Gableman as candidates. The WMC lavished an unprecedented $2 million on each and financed deceitful ads. For the first time in 41 years, a Wisconsin Supreme Court election—Gableman’s—resulted in an incumbent’s defeat. In the state court’s ruling on campaign contributions, both successful candidates were in the majority. Money trumps all.

For Wisconsin, the change is all too apparent. Forty years ago, the state tried a state legislator accused of accepting a $50 bribe. Later, a district attorney brought charges against a highly respected state senator for allegedly illegally making two overseas telephone calls.

Justice Ziegler stepped aside in 2007 in a case between the WRA and the town of West Point after the town noted she had received $8,625 in campaign contributions from the realtors association. The court divided and returned the case to the lower courts, which ruled in favor of the town. But several months later, Ziegler participated in a case that the WMC considered critical and she wrote a 4-3 decision favoring the organization’s position, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in business tax refunds.

After her election, Ziegler’s new high court colleagues rather gently reprimanded her for not recusing herself in cases involving a bank where her husband was a paid director. Some reprimand.

Gableman’s election brought complaints from lawyers that he had violated the judicial code by lying about his opponent’s record.

Gableman, the court’s newest judge, unabashedly supported the WMC’s position on the campaign contributions rule. Gableman ripped into the League of Women Voters—notoriously nonpartisan—calling it a “left-wing” group that advocated the regulation of campaign speech and demanded government “regulators” who would oversee judges. Gableman said the WMC’s approach properly “memorializes the First Amendment rights of the people to express their political views.” For Gableman, First Amendment rights are all about money—and probably not much else. At one point, he demanded that a spokesperson for the League of Women Voters account for George Soros’ contributions to the group.

Progressive attorney Ed Garvey, a veteran of notable run-ins with the state court on its ethical rulings, said the court’s majority served notice that “it ain’t [a fight using] bean bags—it is pitched battle. A once great court is deeply divided, with a majority that believes money is speech! Absurd but real.”

Money is awash in our politics, and it has invaded the judicial arena. Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has noted that 14 states since 2006 broke records for spending in state judicial contests. She particularly drew attention to the influx of special interest money in state judicial elections, calling it a dangerous threat to “the integrity of judicial selection,” one that could “compromise public perception of judicial decisions.”

O’Connor said she feared that the judiciary would become “another political arm of the government.” It is somewhat late in the day to lament the politicization of the judiciary, a condition that has always existed, but extravagant campaign contributions have now perilously altered the landscape.

Justice O’Connor must be appalled by the Wisconsin ruling. Perhaps it challenges the U.S. Supreme Court’s Caperton decision, which held that campaign contributions could force a judicial recusal. The Caperton majority confronted determined dissenters, led by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia. Will the Wisconsin ruling provide them with new ammunition and cover in following Wisconsin’s lead? The fight over O’Connor’s concern for “the integrity of judicial selection” is not over.

Equal justice under equal law for all, we often proclaim; but when disproportionate advantage is given to one class or one group, the damage to that tenet is profound. We struggle today with the consequences of legislation that effectively reduced government’s power to regulate unbridled buccaneering in the pursuit of wealth for individual gain, and at the expense of many. The Wisconsin state court judges denounced “regulators” and invoked the insidious notion that we should trust our watchmen to watch themselves. What happened in Wisconsin is a microcosm of our present nightmares and failures.

Truthdig - Reports - The Best Justice That Money Can Buy
 

Hamtone

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
13,293
Reaction score
7,657
I wonder what would happen if they actually said "you cant spend more than 1 mil and you all get equal time in all media"

Elected officials would actually have to go to every nook and cranny and listen to the people.

Not to derail this topic but, on a similar note. I heard the governor of Minn, talking crap about a senator from my state because she didnt vote on the party line on healthcare. How the [email protected] does some asshole in another state know what my senators state wants? I dont even like my senators or my reps or the governor. But this party line [email protected], wtf?
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,930
I wonder what would happen if they actually said "you cant spend more than 1 mil and you all get equal time in all media"

Elected officials would actually have to go to every nook and cranny and listen to the people.

Not to derail this topic but, on a similar note. I heard the governor of Minn, talking crap about a senator from my state because she didnt vote on the party line on healthcare. How the [email protected] does some asshole in another state know what my senators state wants? I dont even like my senators or my reps or the governor. But this party line [email protected], wtf?


I made the original post because I harp a lot on the fact that our legislators are bought and paid for. What a lot of people don't realize is that the judicial system is just as bad. Our system of government, every branch where elections take place has been corrupted.

Your 'party line' comment is true. But that is the nature of politics, strength in numbers... vote for my cause and I'll vote for yours. Not just money corrupts but power as we all know. The party system is one of aggregate power. It has nothing to do with representing 'us'.. we the people.

We need to wake up and make some massive overhauls. Things have gone way to far and we are out of control.
 

PraXis

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
24,931
Reaction score
24,451
Bloomberg spent $100 MILLION on a mayoral campaign. :shock:
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
373
Reaction score
16
"They said , they would have got me ten or maybe nine."

"I said, well how do explain how homies breezin'?"

"They said , you keep your mouth shut or you eat the cheese"
 

Makeitstop

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
8,210
Reaction score
715
Bloomberg spent $100 MILLION on a mayoral campaign. :shock:

That's par for the course for a billionaire - he spent something like $50 mil last time.

Funny thing is, he didn't deliver the knockout blow that he'd hoped for. A couple of news orgs first called it for him last night, then had to 'un-call' it because it was a lot tighter than everyone thought.

Congrats on Christie's win, BTW. Here's hoping he can untangle the mess your state is in.

- D
 

PraXis

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
24,931
Reaction score
24,451
That's par for the course for a billionaire - he spent something like $50 mil last time.

Funny thing is, he didn't deliver the knockout blow that he'd hoped for. A couple of news orgs first called it for him last night, then had to 'un-call' it because it was a lot tighter than everyone thought.

Congrats on Christie's win, BTW. Here's hoping he can untangle the mess your state is in.

- D

I'm moving within 2-3 years anyway, but I am worried about my large extended family who will never leave NJ.
 

lpcustom69

Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
2,024
Reaction score
557
It seems that all politicians are corrupt. We need term limits to get rid of the career politicians. We need more "everyman" in office, not just lawyers. Also, need a 5 year period before a politician can go work for special interest groups (lobbyists).
 

FrankieOliver

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
17,958
Reaction score
27,130
The party system is one of aggregate power. It has nothing to do with representing 'us'.. we the people...We need to wake up and make some massive overhauls. Things have gone way to far and we are out of control.
I confess that I did not vote yesterday in the New York mayoral election, the first time I've abstained, for these reasons. People will argue that my thinking is off, but I believe I would not be properly represented by any of the people seeking the power of political office. I could not in good conscience vote for what I speculated to be the lesser of two...this just simply does not cut it for me anymore. :hmm:
 

oldaxeman

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
286
Reaction score
0
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ is all everything is about. It will buy anything because everything is for sale. The wheels of BIG business get bigger every day and if you get near them or under them you get crushed or become part of those wheels.

Apathy may be a bad thing for democracy, but then is democracy what we really have here??? Or have we become complaisant with the system? It seems we have to me. The majority of voters don't want to rock the boat because they have too much at stake and do not value the freedoms that were set forth by the founders of this country. If they did this would not have happened. It's is on really screwed up mess we have allowed ourselves in.

Maybe what this country really needs is a deep dark depression, another world war and tremendous loss of life before we can appreciate the values of Truth, Honor, common courtesy, and common sense. I hope and pray that is doesn't come to that but the way things are going, with the really wide gaps between the rich and the poor, people are either going to throw in the towel and succumb to the bullshit or revolt. Then those that do already have their "terrorist" tags made for them by the patriot act and the previous administration.

Really similar to the Roman empire, don't you think? Ballooned up then popped, only a lot quicker in these times where everything is a lot faster.
 

Latest Threads



Top