Justice at Stake in the News

"What is the cost when the public loses trust in the courts? Unfortunately, West Virginia knows the answer to that question as well as any state in the nation. In 2004, with a $50 million lawsuit at stake, coal executive Don Blankenship spent $3 million of his own money to elect a new justice to the West Virginia Supreme Court, who eventually helped overturn the jury award against Blankenship's company. (7th Paragraph) The poll, commissioned by the nonpartisan reform groups Justice at Stake Campaign and Committee for Economic Development, showed strong bipartisan support for public financing, and that loss of public confidence in the courts is no fantasy."

"CHARLESTON -- A recent poll shows that a majority of West Virginia voters support public financing of state Supreme Court elections. The poll, conducted Feb. 21-24 by Anzalone Listzt Research, revealed Monday that 52 percent of voters want their tax money to be used for the elections. The poll was commissioned by the Justice at Stake Campaign and the Committee for Economic Development. Voters were also reminded of the controversial 2004 campaign which saw millions of outside dollars spent for Brent Benjamin and Warren McGraw, leading to a 6-percent jump. "West Virginia's voters understand that judges should be able to focus on the law, not on dialing for dollars," said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of Justice at Stake."

"The West Virginia Senate Judiciary Committee has endorsed a bill that would publicly finance elections of state supreme court justices. Last week, the state House of Delegates approved pilot program propsed by Gov. Joe Manchin that would finance the two contested seats in the 2012 supreme court race. Candidates would get $200,000 each for primaries and $350,000 for the general election˜all being contingent on whether fundraising thresholds are met, BusinessWeek reports. Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeff Kessler announced his committee's endorsement of the plan at the same time the Justice at Stake Campaign announced the results of a survey (PDF) that found that 52 percent of 600 voters surveyed supported public financing of elections. The American Bar Association is a partner in the Justice at Stake Campaign."

"CHARLESTON, W.Va. (Legal Newsline) - A recent poll shows that a majority of West Virginia voters support public financing of state Supreme Court elections.The poll, conducted Feb. 21-24 by Anzalone Listzt Research, revealed Monday that 52 percent of voters want their tax money to be used for the elections. The poll was commissioned by the Justice at Stake Campaign and the Committee for Economic Development.Voters were also reminded of the controversial 2004 campaign which saw millions of outside dollars spent for Brent Benjamin and Warren McGraw, leading to a 6-percent jump."West Virginia's voters understand that judges should be able to focus on the law, not on dialing for dollars," said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of Justice at Stake."

"CHARLESTON — Using tax dollars to finance races for the West Virginia Supreme Court is preferable to candidates raking in millions from special interests in a “dialing for dollars” atmosphere that raises suspicions of tainted justice. Such was the thrust of a survey taken for the Washington-based Justice at Stake Campaign and disclosed Monday at the Capitol. In the last decade, Bert Brandenburg, the campaign’s executive director said, candidates for Supreme Court races across America generated some $206 million. Noncandidate groups spent at least $40 million extra, he told reporters, as Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeffrey Kessler, D-Marshall, prepared to take up a pilot public financing bill."

<p>&quot;Several national groups are taking sides on legislation, approved Monday in the state Senate, that would offer public funds to future candidates for West Virginia's Supreme Court.The Justice at Stake Campaign and the Committee for Economic Development unveiled recent polling of West Virginia voters Monday as they endorsed the public financing proposal, part of Gov. Joe Manchin's agenda this session.The two nonpartisan groups decry the recent deluge of campaign cash into state judicial races. They were joined by Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeff Kessler, D-Marshall, whose committee endorsed the bill later Monday. That non-unanimous voice vote sent the measure to Senate Finance.&quot;</p>

"CHARLESTON, W.Va. (Legal Newsline) - A recent poll shows that a majority of West Virginia voters support public financing of state Supreme Court elections. The poll, conducted Feb. 21-24 by Anzalone Listzt Research, revealed Monday that 52 percent of voters want their tax money to be used for the elections. The poll was commissioned by the Justice at Stake Campaign and the Committee for Economic Development. Voters were also reminded of the controversial 2004 campaign which saw millions of outside dollars spent for Brent Benjamin and Warren McGraw, leading to a 6-percent jump."

"Several national groups are taking a stand on legislation that would offer public funds to future candidates for West Virginia's Supreme Court. The Justice at Stake Campaign and the Committee for Economic Development say recent polling shows bipartisan support for the public financing bill. Leaders from those groups expect to detail the poll results and throw their support behind the bill Monday at a Capitol press conference. They'll be joined by Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeff Kessler, whose committee received the legislation following its passage by the House last week."

Veteran newsman Bill Moyers warns that after the Citizens United ruling, "There's now a crooked sign hanging on every courthouse in America reading 'Justice for Sale.' Click here to learn more. Also, a Huffington Post column by Moyers cites Justice at Stake.

"That famous definition of a cynic as someone who knows the price of everything -- and the value of nothing -- has come to define this present moment of American politics. No wonder people have lost faith in politicians, parties and in our leadership. The power of money drives cynicism deep into the heart of every level of government. Everything, and everyone, comes with a price tag attached: from a seat at the table in the White House to a seat in Congress, to the fate of health care reform, our environment, and efforts to restrain Wall Street's greed and prevent another financial catastrophe. (Later in the post) In the words of Charles W. Hall, a spokesman for the non-partisan, judicial watchdog group Justice at Stake, "Corporate bottom lines are not affected by whether a bank robber gets 10 or 20 years in prison. The bottom lines are affected however by whether a large scale lawsuit is upheld or overturned."" Click here to read more.

"The amount of money spent on last year’s state Supreme Court election is staggering. With at least $4.7 million raised, our own deputy director Shira Goodman noted the race to be the most expensive in history on a per-seat basis. Today’s PA Law Weekly (subscription required) takes a look at exactly where all that money came from. While campaign finance reports indicate that defeated Democrat Jack Panella raised more than twice the amount of the victorious Joan Orie Melvin, including more than one million from the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association’s PAC, these figures don’t tell the full story." Click here to read more.

"The campaign finance reports filed by candidates in last year's state Supreme Court race show Democrat Jack Panella's campaign committee raised more than double the amount collected by the committee of the Republican nominee, Joan Orie Melvin." Click here to read more.

"Forget all the rhetoric about the Jacksonian premise of a popularly elected judiciary. The public wants cash out of the courtroom ˜ and that could mean pushing elections out, too. Megabuck contributions from courtroom players, however innocently invested, lead to serious mistrust of the courts: 84 percent of Americans believe judges should not hear cases from major campaign contributors, and 74 percent believe campaign cotributions have some influence on a judge's courtroom decisions, according to surveys conducted by Justice At Stake, a national nonpartisan group that monitors money in judicial elections." Click here to read more.

"As I read over last week’s aggressively wrong 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision greatly escalating the power of corporate and union money in elections, my thoughts turned to former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. That is not just because the ruling is another reminder of the court’s rightward shift since Justice O’Connor was replaced by the starkly conservative Justice Samuel Alito. Since retiring, Justice O’Connor has been warning about the threat to judicial independence from big-money state judicial campaigns and attack ads paid for by special interests hoping to influence future court decisions. The Citizens United ruling promises to make that problem worse, possibly much worse." Click here to read more.

"Cleveland attorney James Robenalt interviews judicial candidates as a volunteer with Judge4Yourself.com, a joint bar association program that rates candidates who are running for judgeships in Northeast Ohio. But even he isn't always sure he knows the candidates well enough to make intelligent decisions on Election Day. “Sometimes I'm at the voting booth and I'm wondering to myself, "Which Russo is this one? Which McMonagle is this?'” Mr. Robenalt said. So it's not surprising that the Thompson Hine lawyer thinks a new plan to end the election of Ohio Supreme Court justices, and replace it with a system the plan's proponents call merit selection, is a good idea." Click here to read more.