jillianjiggs
11-20-2002, 02:43 PM
W A S H I N G T O N, Nov. 20 — Campaigns for judgeships are looking increasingly like other contests for public office: Those who spend the most usually win, according to a study released Wednesday.
The study by the Brennan Center for Justice, a group that supports overhauling campaign finance laws, said judicial candidates who spent the most on television advertisements won in 10 of 11 races.
Three-fourths of Senate races this month were won by the higher-spending candidate, as were 95 percent of House races, according to an Associated Press analysis of Federal Election Commission data.
The Brennan Center said more judicial candidates were raising more money and running more commercials than ever before. Candidates for nine states' supreme courts took to the airwaves in 2002 Alabama, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Texas and Washington. In 2000, ads ran in only four states Alabama, Michigan, Mississippi and Ohio.
"This spending brings questions of a candidate's allegiance, and with respect to judges, whether or not they can be impartial on the bench," said Alfred Carlton Jr., president of the American Bar Association.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the next battleground for changing campaign finance laws would be in state court elections.
"We've got to limit special interest influence over our courts," said McCain, chief sponsor of a new law that bans unlimited donations from corporations, unions and individuals to political parties. "This is not how individual rights should be protected or justice be administered."
But James Bopp Jr., general counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech, said judges should be allowed to tell the public who they are.
"The First Amendment protects the right and ability of candidates to state their general views on the law because voters need to know that information," said Bopp, who has challenged restrictions on campaign spending as unconstitutional violations of freedom of speech. "The problem with judicial election is we don't know enough about the candidates, not that we know too much. Increased spending in judicial elections will provide more information about candidates. This is good for democracy."
The study released Wednesday looked at advertisements for state supreme court judgeships that ran in the nation's 100 largest media markets.
Many candidates were helped by advertisements paid for by outside interest groups, the study said. Groups that paid for the ads did not have to identify sources of their money because their commercials did not specifically urge a vote for or against a particular candidate but were considered "issue advertisements." Ten such groups ran ads in 2002 as compared with five in 2000, the center said.
"The public already believes that we have two systems of justice one for those with money and one for those without," said Deborah Goldberg, deputy director of the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. "TV ads are expensive, and as money becomes more important to these elections, that cynicism can only grow."
The only candidate who was able to win despite being outspent on the airwaves was Alabama Supreme Court Justice Harold See, who nevertheless ran more commercials than his opponent, the study found.
(abcnews.com)
The study by the Brennan Center for Justice, a group that supports overhauling campaign finance laws, said judicial candidates who spent the most on television advertisements won in 10 of 11 races.
Three-fourths of Senate races this month were won by the higher-spending candidate, as were 95 percent of House races, according to an Associated Press analysis of Federal Election Commission data.
The Brennan Center said more judicial candidates were raising more money and running more commercials than ever before. Candidates for nine states' supreme courts took to the airwaves in 2002 Alabama, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Texas and Washington. In 2000, ads ran in only four states Alabama, Michigan, Mississippi and Ohio.
"This spending brings questions of a candidate's allegiance, and with respect to judges, whether or not they can be impartial on the bench," said Alfred Carlton Jr., president of the American Bar Association.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the next battleground for changing campaign finance laws would be in state court elections.
"We've got to limit special interest influence over our courts," said McCain, chief sponsor of a new law that bans unlimited donations from corporations, unions and individuals to political parties. "This is not how individual rights should be protected or justice be administered."
But James Bopp Jr., general counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech, said judges should be allowed to tell the public who they are.
"The First Amendment protects the right and ability of candidates to state their general views on the law because voters need to know that information," said Bopp, who has challenged restrictions on campaign spending as unconstitutional violations of freedom of speech. "The problem with judicial election is we don't know enough about the candidates, not that we know too much. Increased spending in judicial elections will provide more information about candidates. This is good for democracy."
The study released Wednesday looked at advertisements for state supreme court judgeships that ran in the nation's 100 largest media markets.
Many candidates were helped by advertisements paid for by outside interest groups, the study said. Groups that paid for the ads did not have to identify sources of their money because their commercials did not specifically urge a vote for or against a particular candidate but were considered "issue advertisements." Ten such groups ran ads in 2002 as compared with five in 2000, the center said.
"The public already believes that we have two systems of justice one for those with money and one for those without," said Deborah Goldberg, deputy director of the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. "TV ads are expensive, and as money becomes more important to these elections, that cynicism can only grow."
The only candidate who was able to win despite being outspent on the airwaves was Alabama Supreme Court Justice Harold See, who nevertheless ran more commercials than his opponent, the study found.
(abcnews.com)