Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices and Campaign Contribution Conflicts
"You can buy Supreme Court races" under the current system, said Rep.
Pedro Colón (D-Milwaukee). "The sign is outside: 'This court is
for
sale.'" (from <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/69304827.html" target="”_blank”">an
article in the Milwaukee <i>Journal Sentinel</i></a> last week)<br>
<br>
Nobody wants this to be said, at least nobody but four of the seven
Wisconsin
Supreme Court justices, according to <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/67012672.html" target="”_blank”">another
article in the <i>Journal Sentinel</i></a>. On October 28, the Supreme Court
rejected, 4-3, a League of Women Voters petition to require justices to
recuse themselves from a case involving a person or entity that had, in
the past two years, contributed over $1,000 to their campaigns. By the
same vote they accepted a petition written by the Wisconsin Realtors
Association and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (the state
chamber of commerce).<br>
<br>
The state's longstanding ethics code for justices requires them to
recuse
themselves if their impartiality can reasonably be questioned. The new
rule says that campaign contributions or endorsements alone are not
enough to require recusal. In other words, a Supreme Court justice
doesn't have to withdraw from a case involving an individual or entity
that gave his or her campaign a thousand dollars or a million dollars.<br>
<br>
It's easy to see why the League of Women Voters would petition the
Supreme Court for better judicial ethics. But why would the states'
realtor and business associations petition the Court for worse judicial
ethics?<br>
<br>
The reason isn't some theoretical policy difference. The associations
have
hard, selfish reasons for undermining Wisconsin's judicial ethics.<br>
<p>In 2007 one of the justices, who received $8,625 from the realtors
association, was asked to recuse herself by the other party to a case
involving the association. The justice did recuse herself, the Court
split 3-3, the case went back to the appellate court, and it ruled
against the realtors. The realtors don't want this to happen again.<br>
</p>
<p>A few months later, the same justice did not recuse herself in a
case that involved hundreds of millions of dollars in business tax
refunds, despite the fact that, only a year before, the chamber of
commerce had spent $2 million to help her get elected. This time, the
Court split 4-3, and the businesses won big-time. The chamber wants to
make sure this happens again.<br>
</p>
<p>According to <a href="http://gazettextra.com/news/2009/nov/04/new-high-court-ethics-rules-sho…; target="”_blank”">an
op-ed piece</a> in the Janesville (WI) <i>Gazette</i>, the chamber spent at
least $1.8 million to help another Supreme Court justice get elected.<br>
</p>
<p>And yet both justices voted on the chamber's petition, and both
voted
for it and against the League of Women Voters'. In other words, on the
question of recusal on the basis of campaign contributions, at least
two justices acted as if the vote had already been taken, so that in
the future they could continue to get multi-million dollar
contributions and expenditures. So much, once again, for self-regulation, even by Supreme Court justices.<br>
</p>
<p>Fortunately, the Wisconsin legislature recognized how horrible this was. Days later, the legislature passed a
public financing bill for Supreme Court elections, according to <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/69304827.html" target="”_blank”">an
article in the <i>Journal Sentinel</i></a>. It sounds like a good program, but
it may be an uphill battle getting justices to participate and keeping
groups such as the chamber from independently supporting candidates to
such an extent, it would break the program by making it too expensive
and, therefore, too unpopular with voters.<br>
</p>
<p>Some people are calling for appointing rather than elected Supreme
Court justices in Wisconsin. That seems to be the best solution. It's too important that Supreme
Court decisions not be
compromised by apparent conflicts of interest.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>