The question is so well-worn that it might as well be called a cliche: How can we expect elected officials to uphold the public good when their re-elections depend on harvesting cash from private interests? Insert images of Armani-suited lobbyists, dark, smoke-filled rooms, and, if you're a fan of the ridiculous, bundles of cash stashed away in a freezer, and you've got the money-in-politics fight down to a thoroughly chewed nutshell.
Flickr photo by Brian Turner
But every now and then, as the Assembly has been quietly doing over the last several weeks, someone finds a little wrinkle that makes the age-old argument interesting again.
This time, it's judges.
Earlier this month, the state Assembly passed a bill designed to limit conflicts of interest between judges and their campaign contributors and held a hearing into whether and how the exchange of cash-money hurts the perception that California's judges are fair and impartial.
The bill, which unanimously cleared the Assembly on May 6, would prevent superior court judges from hearing cases involving people or companies from which they accepted campaign contributions larger than $1,500. It was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.
The official bill analysis explains the intent of its author, Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles:
This non-controversial measure seeks to require superior court judges in California to take two important cautionary steps to maximize the actual and perceived fairness of our courts: 1) disclose to the parties appearing before the court whether any opposing party or counsel has made a campaign contribution to the judge; and, 2) if the contribution is in excess of $1500, to disqualify themselves from hearing the matter. The disqualification and disclosure requirements would apply for the six-year term for which the contribution was made. The disqualification provision could be waived by the party that did not make the contribution.
Feuer, chairman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, also held a hearing last week about the issue, calling on scholars, judges and other experts to lay out the ins, outs and implications of judicial campaign finance.
To sum it up, the panelists agreed that the issue was a tough one to crack. Panelists floated several ideas for limiting the influence of donor cash on judicial races, including public financing, disclosure upgrades and lengthening judicial terms.
Both in California and around the country, judicial campaigns are typically conducted and regulated much differently than races for policymaking positions, in part because it only takes a small amount of money to tip public sentiment from one little-known judge to another.
California's Supreme Court and appeals court judges are appointed, but its superior court judges – the ones citizens are most likely to interact with – are chosen in non-partisan elections.
The contests are typically low-key affairs. Most judges run unopposed every six years to keep their jobs. The Ali-Frazier-style throwdowns that characterize other state races are rare.
But that doesn't mean money isn't an issue. A story from The New York Times back in 2006 showed a tight correlation between the rulings of Ohio Supreme Court justices and donors to their campaigns.
And last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that large campaign contributions to judges could jeopardize the consitutional right to a fair trial.
Comments
via Twitter