Hanging a ‘For Sale’ Sign over the Judiciary
Fair Courts E-lert
Bibliographic Info:
Author: Dorothy Samuels
Source: The New York Times
Date: 1/29/2010
“The Citizens United ruling promises” to exacerbate “ . . . the problem [of] . . . big-money state judicial campaigns,” writes Dorothy Samuels at The New York Times. Citing figures from Justice at Stake, Samuels notes that campaign fundraising in judicial races has increased drastically over the past decade, with candidates raising more than double the totals from the previous decade. In Citizens United, the Court ruled that the government may not restrict independent political spending by corporations in candidate elections; the ruling prompted worries that corporate special interests, which already play an outsized role in state judicial elections, will now be completely unfettered. Not only will “business and other outside interest groups . . . further dominate the airwaves and the debate in campaigns,” but also there will be unprecedented pressure on judicial candidates themselves to “devote even more time to fund-raising.” “Thoughtful candidates known to look at the law on a case by case basis” will be at a decided disadvantage, and thus state high courts are likely to become more polarized, contends Hofstra Law Professor James Sample, “because more moderate candidates are unlikely to be considered a bankable vote by any special interest group investing heavily in judicial campaigns.” Another likely outgrowth of the Supreme Court’s decision, says Evan Tracey of the Campaign Media Analysis Group (which tracks advertising spending), is that television ads will appear earlier in the election cycle and that the content will be “more pointed now that the court has nixed restrictions on how issue ads can be worded.”
See Cynthia Littleton, Affiliates Cheer Supreme Court, Variety, January 29, 2010. See also, Adam Liptak, Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit, The New York Times, January 21, 2010.