Special Interest Spending

Justice Stevens: We have never confronted a case as extreme as this before. This fits the standard that Potter Stewart articulated when he said "I know it when I see it."

Justice Breyer: “This is way outside the envelope.”

Justice Ginsburg: “We don't deal with an abstract setting. We have the setting of elections, of elections of judges and millions of dollars spent on them. That's the context in which this case arises.”

Breyer on contributions:“It doesn't just affect the  [process]  through gratitude. A normal human being also thinks, if I play my cards right, maybe it will be repeated, and they'll want to keep me in office. And we have the fact of how it looks.”

Olson: “The political process … is spiraling out of control. There is a financial arms race in judicial elections in various States throughout the country,” Souter replied, “Oh, I think we all recognize that.”

Souter stressing the unprecedented nature of the problem: “I don't know … how much help common law is. Common law didn't have elected judges. Common law did not have this contribution system.”

Frey vigorously denied any evidence of bias on Benjamin’s part, saying he and Blankenship have no relationship, and that Benjamin had no control over Blankenship’s campaign. “He has done nothing that would call into question his objectivity, his impartiality.”

Scalia rejected the idea that financial support even suggested a desire for a favorable vote by Benjamin: I have no reason to think he expected me (a contributor) to lie and distort cases in order to come out his way. What I expected he wanted me to do was to be a good judge, and I'm being faithful to him and I'm -- I'm showing my gratitude by -- by being a good judge.
 

Home | History | Spending | Debate | Reforms | Poll | Resources | Grisham | Commentaries | JAS Brief | Quotes