Judicial Campaign Contribution Quid Fails to Produce Quo
*Cross-posted from The Huffington Post
The sun may start rising in the west over Wisconsin. Justice Annette Ziegler has recused herself from a case.
As detailed in this space last week, Ziegler has ruled on cases involving a bank that her husband helped to run; has ruled on cases involving a company in which she owned $50,000 in stock; and recently even sat on a case
involving an organization that spent $2 million -- more than the total
expenditures of her entire campaign -- to help her get elected.
In sum, whatever attributes Ziegler might have previously demonstrated, an Aristotelian radar
for the rules of ethics was not one of them. The Wisconsin Ethics
Board, which reached a settlement with Ziegler that included
substantial fines, noticed. Editorial boards around the state noticed. A special three-judge panel
convened to address her violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and
Wisconsin ethics rules applicable to all public officials, noticed. The
Governor of Wisconsin, who called a special legislative session to address the problem of justice-for-sale noticed. Bloggers noticed. Governmental reform groups noticed.
This week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court itself (yes, including Justice
Ziegler), clearly having noticed, even sent a truly remarkable letter
to Governor Doyle unanimously endorsing the concept of judicial public financing.
Nearly everyone in Wisconsin, save one person, it seemed, had noticed.
Yet now, maybe, finally, possibly, could-it-be true, and could-it-be-because-of-all-of-the above, Justice Ziegler has noticed?
The details of yesterday's recusal are here.
If you believe in due process, feel free to scream Eureka. And have
little doubt that interest groups everywhere are mortified by this rare
failure of a quid to produce even the appearance of a quo. But also
realize this: so far it seems that Justice Ziegler's newfound
enlightenment does not extend to mathematics.
Yesterday's decision to recuse, in light of $17,000 in combined
contributions from groups representing home builders and real estate
agents, stands strikingly at odds with her continued participation in
the case involving the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, who
independently spent $2 million to support her election.
Give a candidate a choice between $2 million in supportive
independent expenditures (a choice they technically could not make) and
$17,000 in direct contributions, and no candidate in their right mind
would choose the latter. So if $17,000 appropriately triggers recusal .
. . hmm, I suspect all of Wisconsin sees the problem.
Maybe soon, Justice Ziegler will too.
