|
An assortment of lobbyists declared
last week "judicial reform" week in Lansing. Their goal was to
gain support for public financing of state Supreme Court
elections.
These groups are determined to "take the money out of judicial
elections." To achieve this, they are ready to spend whatever it
takes.
Leading the effort is the Michigan Campaign Finance Network,
which argues that candidates for the state Supreme Court should
not have to degrade themselves by seeking support and
contributions from voters, like every other elected official.
The group favors a bill now before the state Senate that would
require judicial candidates to raise $50,000 before receiving
public funding for their campaigns.
Advertisement
While the Michigan Campaign Finance Network has been
aggressively promoting its cause, the push to keep voters at
arms length from judicial elections is spearheaded by a group
called Justice at Stake, which lists the Michigan Campaign
Finance Network as a "campaign partner."
Lift the rock on Justice at Stake and you'll find hedge fund
billionaire George Soros, who finances ultra-liberal activist
groups like MoveOn.org.
It's hard to find any consistent principle in Soros' opposition
to private campaign funding in judicial elections. Apparently,
he believes that only his wealth should influence the
composition of state judiciaries, and ordinary citizens should
just stay out of it.
This would explain why these interest groups have expressed such
outrage over the judicial campaign contributions of the Michigan
Chamber of Commerce. "Reform" groups call these contributions a
scandalous attempt to "control" the Michigan Supreme Court.
What the critics never mention is the millions of dollars spent
by trial lawyers to shape the high court. When wealthy tort
lawyers like Michigan's Geoffrey Fieger contribute hundreds of
thousands of dollars to judicial candidates, we're supposed to
assume they are acting on the purest of motives.
Strip away the nonpartisan pretenses of these judicial
"reformers" and you'll find the whole cause is really based on a
deep distrust of citizen involvement in judicial elections.
The problem for Justice at Stake and the MCFN is that when
judicial elections are free and fair, their preferred candidates
usually end up losing. It's not campaign finance law these
groups have a quarrel with - it's democracy.
For opponents of judicial elections, the ideal court system
seems to be one in which the selection of judges is a
lawyers-only affair, and the decrees of judges are obeyed
without question by citizens and business owners. But judges are
not infallible, and an independent judiciary is not the same as
an unaccountable judiciary.
The people of Michigan must be involved in the election of
judges for our state's highest court - that's why state
constitution established judicial elections in the first place.
The guidance of our constitution's framers is far more reliable
than the advice of the lobbyists scurrying around Lansing,
because it keeps citizens involved and holds judges accountable.
|
