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.
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.
By the time the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, ordering now-Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin off the case, West Virginia had become a national poster child for the dangers of special-interest money in court elections. Polls also showed that most state voters doubted Benjamin's ability to be fair and impartial.
This week, our Legislature has a historic opportunity to put the legacy of that case squarely in our past.
A public financing bill would free state Supreme Court candidates from having to raise money from litigants. And it would declare loudly that West Virginia's courts belong to all our citizens, not just to a few campaign spenders with deep pockets. This important bill, already approved by the House and currently pending in the Senate Finance Committee, should be passed quickly and signed by Gov. Joe Manchin.
The last remaining objection concerns the bill's cost. Public financing would be paid for through modest increases in some civil court filing fees, as well as a licensing fee on lawyers. But lawmakers must not ignore the cost of inaction - continued public doubts about state courts.
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.
Fifty-two percent favored public financing, a margin that increased to 61 when the 2004 Supreme Court election was briefly mentioned. Likewise, 68 percent said special-interest spending on court elections was a "serious problem," a number that spiked to 89 percent after Blankenship's 2004 spending spree was raised.
The problem of spending on court elections is not unique to West Virginia. Nationally, fundraising by Supreme Court candidates soared to $206.4 million in 2000-09, more than twice the $83.3 million raised in the 1990s, according to Justice at Stake. In West Virginia, candidates raised nearly $7.4 million, and special interests, including Blankenship, spent at least $4.5 million on independent TV advertising and other unofficial campaign activity.
Public financing is not a total solution to all this spending, but it is an important public statement that courts must be seen as fundamentally different from other branches of government, a place where the law is impartial, and no one gets under-the-table favors because they helped elect the judge hearing a case.
With 78 percent of West Virginians already believing that campaign cash influences courtroom decisions, refusing to shield courts is a false economy. The cost of ignoring the problem will only grow. The time for lawmakers to act is now.
Warren is coordinator for WV Citizens for Clean Elections, a coalition of 26 organizations supporting public financing of elections. Archer is project manager for the WV Citizen Action Group.
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.
By the time the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, ordering now-Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin off the case, West Virginia had become a national poster child for the dangers of special-interest money in court elections. Polls also showed that most state voters doubted Benjamin's ability to be fair and impartial.
This week, our Legislature has a historic opportunity to put the legacy of that case squarely in our past.
A public financing bill would free state Supreme Court candidates from having to raise money from litigants. And it would declare loudly that West Virginia's courts belong to all our citizens, not just to a few campaign spenders with deep pockets. This important bill, already approved by the House and currently pending in the Senate Finance Committee, should be passed quickly and signed by Gov. Joe Manchin.
The last remaining objection concerns the bill's cost. Public financing would be paid for through modest increases in some civil court filing fees, as well as a licensing fee on lawyers. But lawmakers must not ignore the cost of inaction - continued public doubts about state courts.
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.
Fifty-two percent favored public financing, a margin that increased to 61 when the 2004 Supreme Court election was briefly mentioned. Likewise, 68 percent said special-interest spending on court elections was a "serious problem," a number that spiked to 89 percent after Blankenship's 2004 spending spree was raised.
The problem of spending on court elections is not unique to West Virginia. Nationally, fundraising by Supreme Court candidates soared to $206.4 million in 2000-09, more than twice the $83.3 million raised in the 1990s, according to Justice at Stake. In West Virginia, candidates raised nearly $7.4 million, and special interests, including Blankenship, spent at least $4.5 million on independent TV advertising and other unofficial campaign activity.
Public financing is not a total solution to all this spending, but it is an important public statement that courts must be seen as fundamentally different from other branches of government, a place where the law is impartial, and no one gets under-the-table favors because they helped elect the judge hearing a case.
With 78 percent of West Virginians already believing that campaign cash influences courtroom decisions, refusing to shield courts is a false economy. The cost of ignoring the problem will only grow. The time for lawmakers to act is now.
Warren is coordinator for WV Citizens for Clean Elections, a coalition of 26 organizations supporting public financing of elections. Archer is project manager for the WV Citizen Action Group.
Post a comment