THE BEST JUDGES BUSINESS CAN BUY . . . In case you missed it, an editorial that appeared a few weeks ago in the New York Times, "The Best Judges Business Can Buy," began like this--

The problem of wealthy interests’ trying to influence court decisions by pouring money into state judicial elections continues to escalate, according to a newly released report. So does the threat to the impartiality, independence and integrity of the nation’s courts. If the courts are going to pursue justice rather than advance special-interest agendas, states must either adopt public financing and strict fund-raising rules for judicial elections or switch to a nonelective merit selection system. Thirty-nine states elect at least some of their judges.

The report — released by the Justice at Stake Campaign, the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Institute on Money in State Politics — found that by 2004, the amount raised by candidates for states’ highest courts had reached nearly $47 million nationwide, up from $29 million in 2002. In 2006, total fund-raising decreased to $34.4 million, largely owing to a decrease in the number of contested races. But the median amount raised by individual candidates in 2006 soared to nearly $244,000 — from the 2004 median of about $202,000.

The editorial continues that in 2006, while lawyers contributed $7 million to the 88 state supreme court candidates who raised funds in the latest election cycle, businesses contributed $15 million. "By far the biggest spenders in the 2006 judicial elections were business interests."

The report on which the Times editorial was based can be found online: The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2006 (pdf).

Comments

[Jeff]

You have to admire a country that imposes the death penalty on white collar criminals:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/07/10/china.execution.reut/index.html

Seems it would be a more effective deterrent to bad corporate behavior than a lawsuit.