Attack Update: May 18, 2007

• The Radical: Big Business and Special Interests
• The Attack: National Public Radio reported on a study released by the Justice At Stake Campaign, which concluded that state judicial election campaign spending has risen dramatically over the past several years due to a huge increase in special interest money. A New York Times op-ed refers to the increased spending as the “Best Judges Business Can Buy.”
• On average state supreme court candidates raised $250,000 for the election campaigns; at the high end, the campaign costs in the election for the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court soared to $8.2 million.
• TV ads ran in 10 of the 11 states where a state supreme court judgeship was up for election in 2006, compared to 4 out of 18 in 2000. Average television spending increased to a new record at $1.6 million per state. Business interests outspent everyone else combined — by a 2-to-1 margin. A Zogby poll of business leaders that shows concern running so high that 70 percent of those polled favored alternatives to judicial elections.
• In Georgia, the lone elected seat for the state supreme court cost $38,000 in 2000. In 2006, business groups poured in money to defeat Justice Carol Hunstein. The combined price tag? Over $2.3 million, despite which Justice Hunstein still won.
• The nation’s longest serving chief justice, Ohio Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer was critical of the system: "Human nature is that we help people if they help us. And that's the problem with this system." Chief Justice Moyer is a Republican.
• The Significance: Justice may not only be “at stake,” but this group’s study suggests that it also may be “available at a price.” Allowing the continued explosion of campaign contributions in state judicial elections compromises the integrity of the justices that serve, and the American people’s faith in the state judiciary system. It is imperative that campaign spending be controlled, or at least tightly regulated, in these elections in order to ensure that state judicial systems make their decisions fairly and independent from the grasp of special interest groups seeking to buy a favorable decision from state courts. GLBT organizations and civil rights organizations generally lose out in the battle over who has the biggest pockets.