Claris Law Legal Blogging Community

Name:

E-mail:

Phone Number:

Zip Code:

Your Question:

Editor: C. Calvin Warriner
Profession: Cigarette & Tobacco Attorney

Category: Tobacco Litigation

A very disturbing New York Times article suggests that a growing body of evidence tends to prove substantial campaign contributions are affecting judicial independence. In what should send shivers down the spine of both lawyers and the general public the Times seems to make a compelling argument that several high profile cases have been decided in favor of litigants who contributed very heavily to the campaigns of judges who were in the court's ruling majority. Is it really possible that corporations can buy judges?

For years it has been accepted practice for big monied corporate interests to "buy" politicians. If there is any doubt, just take a look at the landslide of legislation very favorable to corporate interests that has passed in the last few years as Republicans have controlled national and state legislative bodies. However, this practice only gets the fat cats so far. In the recent past it has been a virtual cake walk for ultra-conservatives to ram consumer unfriendly legislation down our throats. There's just one problem. Usually the more favorable (onerous and oppressive to individuals) the legislation, the more likely it is to draw unfavorable judicial scrutiny.

As a result a growing sentiment has developed within conservative and their heavily contributing corporate buddies circles that they need to seize control of the courts as well.

Unfortunately this may be possible because a majority of states elect their judges by popular vote. This system provides the ability for those with big cash to recruit and elect judges that they bet will rule in their favor. Litigants, legal scholars and citizens should not be left to debate whether a judge who received millions in campaign contributions from a litigant can be fair to an opponent.

If true, this very disturbing trend should not be tolerated by our anyone let alone a truly independent judiciary. Strict recusal rules should be written requiring judges who received substantial contributions from sitting on a litigant's case. Especially while the case is pending!