The New York Times and Slate report on the possibility that the Supreme Court of the United States will accept any or all of three cases from West Virginia that involve millions of dollars of campaign donations to state supreme court justices from litigants.
Slate argues for public financing of judicial elections, accompanied by tougher requirements that judges recuse themselves from cases that involve their contributors.
I suggest a different approach: make justice blind, by making campaign contributions anonymous in state judicial elections.
If the Supreme Court accepts some of the WWWV campaign finance cases, the outcomes range in two directions. One is a pro-reform direction, such as an outcome that sets a standard for campaign contributions that impermissibly infringe on the Constitution's due process guarantee. A pro-reform outcome might improve the worsening situation in the thirty-nine states that elect some or all of their judges.
The other, more likely direction is anti-reform, such as an outcome that strikes down the Court's precedents which establish that the potential for the appearance of corruption is a constitutionally valid basis for campaign finance regulation. West Virginia could become even more wild and wonderful, if the Court's conservative majority continues to back away from earlier decisions in favor of campaign finance regulation.
The anti-reform outcome might be the better one for popular involvement in American politics. By bringing attention to conservative doctrine that equates the uses of wealth in political campaigns with free speech, the activist justices would get more Americans talking.
Update: The Supreme Court of the United States will hear the case. An amici (friends of the court) brief by reform advocates alleges not an appearance of corruption, but a violation of due process.
-- Bill Corbett
