Kitsap Sun (March 9, 2007)
From 1998 to 2004, the total amount of money spent by or for all Supreme Court candidates — all candidates — varied from $800,000 to $1.2 million.
In 2006, it leaped up to $4.3 million, a 250 percent increase. All indications are that even more money will go into the 2008 Supreme Court elections.
The problem is that most of the money comes from special interest groups — the building industry, the trial lawyers, tort reform groups, labor unions, and others. Judges are not like other politicians who campaign on a platform to enact specific legislation; instead, judges aren’t supposed to announce that they will decide cases a certain way.
Judges should be impartial and give both sides of every case a fair decision without predisposition. Judges are supposed to apply the law enacted by the Legislature, not campaign to change the law. Polls have shown that the public, and even many judges, believe that campaign contributions influence judges’ decisions — exactly the opposite of fairness and impartiality.
Special interest money will support candidates who are already committed to the special interest agenda. Candidates who refuse to commit themselves to positions in advance can find themselves left out of the money race. This includes sitting judges who would bring a wealth of experience to the courts, lawyers who have represented the poor, prosecutors and public defenders.
One solution to this problem is public financing of supreme and appellate court elections. With public financing, the judge is supported by the entire public, not just special interests. A candidate can receive public financing if he or she can show sufficient support from enough voters.
Public financing is entirely voluntary — in return for giving up the right to seek campaign contributions from special interests and individuals, the candidate agrees to be limited to the funds available from the state.
North Carolina enacted public financing for judicial elections in 2002 and it has been very successful. Republicans and Democrats, men and women, white and black, incumbents and challengers, publicly financed candidates of all kinds have won elections.
Under public financing, a candidate who qualifies will receive a set amount for the campaign. If a non-participating candidate spends more money than the publicly supported candidate, or if special interest money exceeds the public support, the publicly supported candidate receives additional fair fight funds to level the playing field.
If you had a case in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, which judge would you rather have on your case — one elected through large donations from special interests with a particular agenda, or one elected with public money and owing no allegiance to special interests?
The Legislature should adopt the proposal for public financing now pending in the House of Representatives. Public financing is a modest investment to guarantee fair and impartial courts. Don’t let special interests buy our courts; preserve the courts for all the people of the state without regard to wealth or privilege.
Attorney Charlie Wiggins is a former Court of Appeals judge and former community member of the Kitsap Sun editorial board. He is in private practice on Bainbridge Island.
 |
 |
 |
|
|