Litigation

New Republic Commentary: ?Judging for Dollars??

By Charlie Hall

How will Citizens United, with its green light for unlimited special-interest spending on elections, affect state elections for Supreme Court justices? In a word, badly, says Adam Skaggs of the Brennan Center for Justice, in a New Republic commentary called “Judging for Dollars.”

Reprising some of the decade’s expensive elections, including the money-soaked 2004 Illinois contest between Republican Lloyd Karmeier and Democrat Gordon Maag, Skaggs calls for a series of reforms, including public financing of Supreme Court campaigns, rules that would force judges to recuse from cases involving major election supporters, and tougher disclosure laws, to publicly identify which spenders are backing which candidates.

Skaggs concluded by citing the unique role of courts in our democracy:

Unlike legislators and executive officials, who are expected to act in accordance with the interests of their constituents, judges don?t ?represent? anyone; they are answerable to the law, not to special interests that can cut the biggest campaign checks. The very legitimacy of the courts depends on the public believing that judges will treat every party without bias or favor. If, in the Citizens United era, states don?t adopt public financing and strong disclosure and disqualification rules, the judiciary’s credibility will dissolve?and quickly.

To learn more about Citizens United, including an amicus brief filed by Justice at Stake, see this JAS online resource page.

Full post as published by The Gavel on April 05, 2010 (boomark / email).