The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) released its opinion in the case of Brent 
Benjamin today. Benjamin is the Chief Justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court. In 2004, when the story began, Benjamin was running for a seat on the state supreme court.
A lower court in West Virginia found Massey Energy Company liable for $50 million in a lawsuit. With judicial elections coming up, the head of Massey got busy. He backed Brent Benjamin against an incumbent judge to the tune of $3 million. To put things in perspective, the head of Massey Energy spent more money to get Benjamin elected than all his other campaign contributors combined.
After Benjamin won the election, the Massey Energy case arrived before him on appeal. The plaintiffs, knowing how much money Massey had spent to get Benjamin elected, asked him to disqualify himself. He refused. He said that he saw no reason that he would be biased. Twice more, Benjamin was asked to recuse himself. Both times, he refused. Then he cast the deciding vote in favor of the defendant, Massey.
Today SCOTUS agreed with what even a fifth grader could see: Benjamin was likely to be biased because of the amount of support he received from Massey Energy. The court ruled that this bias interfered with the due process of law. The appeal of the Massey Energy verdict will go back to the West Virginia Court, but Brent Benjamin will not take part in the proceedings.
The late Molly Ivins often called the American system of campaign finance "legalized bribery." Today's decision affirms her opinion. Thirty-nine states elect judges. In each of those states, candidates must raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to get or keep their jobs. Asking for campaign contributions puts candidates in debt to contributors. When judges preside over their contributors' legal affairs, they risk appearing biased.
In Brent Benjamin's case, it looked like a company bought a judge and a verdict. He has not been accused of any crime. He simply should not have ruled on the case.
Any solution to a problem like this will have its opponents and its flaws. The simplest solution all around is for judges to act ethically and avoid cases where reasonable people would suspect bias. Brent Benjamin proved that this does not work.
The idea of limiting campaign contributions has run into trouble in the past. Campaign contributions are considered free speech, and so they are protected by the constitution. This kind of free speech is troublesome because those with lots of money are entitled to more free speech than those with less.
If campaign budgets were limited by law, the playing field might begin to level. Giving candidates equal air time on broadcast media and refusing to allow purchased commercials could also help. The problem does not lend itself to easy answers.
Politicians get into office by raising more money than their opponents. Campaigns for office are largely marketing campaigns. Whoever advertises the most attractive product wins. Most of the time, elections are not about issues, but personalities. As often as not, there are few differences among the candidates. If Americans demanded more substance from their public officials and less entertainment, things would change. For now, they will just have to be satisfied that it is no longer okay for a judge to favor people who give his campaign money.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 44
great article
I don't think most people even have a grasp of campaign finance rules and how they can affect our courts.
Good stuff.
Excellent article. You have a glitch in the third paragraph where you wrote "Twice more, Massey was asked to recuse himself" where you meant to say Benjamin.
Thanks, I fixed that.
There is so much that is misunderstood when it comes to the judiciary! Great article
Unfortunately too often it is those on the bench that misunderstand it.
The state supreme courts should be like the supreme court where the judges are appointed to the position and the state's senetes decide.
Ann, thanks for posting this. There is so much of this going on that even many of the people that know about it just over-look it.
So much for blind justice. Even if this judge was not biased, he should have recused himself knowing it would appear that way. I'm also thinking that all anonymous campaign contributions should automatically go to charity, or be used to pay off the national debt. Candidates being financed to buy elections is just plain wrong.
Oh my comon sense :-)
It does appear that he may have been bribed. But, everything isn't always as it seems. Who truly knows for sure if he ruled fairly or not. We may never know.
Excellent article. Unfortunately, the court's the decision was not unanimous
Ann, I am sure I have told you about my solution (which works for this as well). I hope you have read it.
"If Americans demanded more substance from their public officials and less entertainment, things would change"
Ain't the the TRUTH!?
That is one of the reasons Obama got elected, Money and Entertainment, absolutely no Substance.
I was there for the live show. More substance in the first 5 minutes than the previous 16 years. At ease, Colonel, your day is over.
Thanks for posting to Fugitives from Ignorance, Conformity, and Peer Pressure
It appears to me that judge should have lost his job
Good article, Ann.
It seems that when a Judge is asked to recuse himself/herself, it ought not to be asking - but a requirement as it's done for a good reason.
Marilyn
Judges can be asked to recuse themselves for any number of reasons, therefore, I so not think one should automatically be removed. Having said that, in this case I agree the judge needed to be removed from the case.
when jusges have to get elected to get and keep their jobs corruption will flourish!
But the troubling part is the vote was 5 to 4.
Yeah and can you guess who was the minority opinion. I have just about lost all respect for the republican majority on the court. It is a good thing that Kennedy is not controlled by the monied interests.
Could anyone please tell me any good reason that corporations should be able to contribute to political elections at all? They are not citizens.
This is exactly how we "moved away" from a government, by the people, for the people, etc... We've just suffered through 8 years of Corporate First.
If they have so much money to contribute to swaying politicians and judges, perhaps they need to do more charity work locally, help the people in their communities--and sway their voting agenda with good deeds.
Okay, My Pollyanna moment is over. But it was fun to imagine a world where corporations too care of their communities...
(((sigh)))
Wilka
YEP! I like that!
Standing Ovation for Wilka's comment !!
I too have often wondered what happened to the compassionate, community conscious capitalists that were supposedly so common in the 1940s and 1950s? When did they all get caught up in the American Me'ism?
Oh yeah, it was the '80s wasn't it.
I agree, Wilka.
Good article, Ann.
WE NEED MORE OF THIS, Ann. Your willingness to repeat this news on this forum is to be congratulated
Ann, great article. And obvious to the rest of us, including the rest of the world. Doesn't make the U.S. look very good when it's judges try to get away with the same kinds of antics as in Russia and Iraq...
How does this kind of thing happen? The average American can't tell you what the three branches of our Federal Government are!
Uh, Spartan,
Would that be the Branch Water, Branch to the left and Branch to the right?
:O\
It begins to resemble the Liars' branch, the Robbers' branch, and the Bullies' branch.
Great article, Ann. Campaign financing as it stands right now in this country is destroying our government and justice systems, simple as that. The fact that right now there is absolutely no one in a committee position, Repub or Dem, that is willing to even consider a single-payor health care system in this country speaks volumes as to the ability to buy government representatives. The health insurance and big pharma lobbyists are spending millions and millions to buy these people off, and we will not even have a chance at real health care reform.
I personally think it IS legalized bribery. And we are all paying the price, in every aspect of our lives. All the while, corporations run the government and our reps are all their hired hands.
This should have been such a no-brainer.
I'm guessing "no-brain" is the operative issue here.
I am SO glad to hear that the Massey case will be redecided and that Benjamin will not be on the bench for it.
Yup, America, its Laws, and its Justice have become wholly hinged on money; which to me seems very un-American. Equal Justice, Fair Justice and True Justice should not be dependent on how much money a person has.
It's the 'Free Market Government' the GOP has always wanted, Bill.
I had to be sure how the judges voted and found this:
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS,
SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dis-
senting opinion, in which SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined.
SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Just as I predicted--every one!
Justice may be blind but it sure ain't free.
Well written, and true of far too much government decision.
Very well written comentary .... I agree with you whole heartedly we need changes so that justice is just that. I also agree with Sheryl L. Jun 8, 2009, 7:16pm EDT
The state supreme courts should be like the supreme court where the judges are appointed to the position and the state's senetes decide.
That would seem to me to be one solution.
Well written.
I agree:
//If campaign budgets were limited by law, the playing field might begin to level. Giving candidates equal air time on broadcast media and refusing to allow purchased commercials could also help. The problem does not lend itself to easy answers.//
Ah, "Justice" in America...if you have enough money you can get away with most anything!
:O\
thanks!