Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | T | Trial

Keep the courts free and fair: the influence of special interests and partisan politics threatens the independence of judges and the rights of all Americans. But groups are unifying to counter the trend.

Article Excerpt
America's courts are under fire. At both the federal and state levels, the influence of tort reformers" and other special interests threatens the courts' independence. Groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Tort Reform Association are targeting the judges who uphold our laws and protect our rights. The stakes--the fairness and impartiality of our judicial system--couldn't be higher.

More than 95 percent of America's lawsuits are tried before state judges. In all but 11 states, judges are elected. Over the last decade, special interest groups have ramped up their involvement in judicial races, which have come to resemble modern political campaigns.

In 2000, state supreme court election campaigns raised $45.6 million--a 61 percent increase over 1998, and double the amount raised in 1994. Powerful national and local interest groups like the Chamber of Commerce spend millions on TV ads to support candidates that they favor. (1)

For example, even in an off-year cycle such as the 2001-2002 election, special interests spent more than $2.2 million on ads. In 2000, four groups, including the Chamber of Commerce and Citizens for a Sound Economy, took out campaign ads; by 2002 the list had more than doubled to include the American Taxpayers Alliance, Idahoans for Tax Reform, and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. (2)

Forbes magazine reports that two years ago in Mississippi, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce poured over $1 million into a successful bid to unseat Justice Chuck McRea, who, in their view, was antibusiness. (3) (3) More than three in four voters believe that donors to judges' campaigns get special treatment in court--and 26 percent of judges agree. (4)

These politically motivated interest groups are rushing to fill an information vacuum: Many voters do not have enough information about judicial candidates. Only 13 percent say they have a "great deal" of information about candidates in these contests. (5) So they do one of two things: Either they do not vote at all, or they make their choice based on name recognition or gender or political affiliation.

The average cost of a victorious state supreme court campaign has been rising for years. In 2002, state supreme court candidates in Ohio and

Illinois set new spending records. Indeed, the number of state supreme court campaigns that ran television ads doubled from 2000 to 2002. In 9 out of 11 races where ads ran in 2002, the candidate with the most air time--funded by his or her campaign and supportive interest groups combined--won the election. (6)

Interest groups are the hatchet men of these campaigns. In the 2002 Ohio supreme court elections, for example, nearly four out of five TV ads paid for by the candidates bore positive messages, while nearly 50 percent of those paid for by special interest groups were...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!