Criticisms regarding elections only reinforce Justice O’Connor’s claim that judicial elections represent an opportunity for partisans and special interests to install judges who will answer to them.
In Citizens United v Federal Election Commission , by allowing such groups to spend without limits on communication tools during campaigns, the Supreme Court upheld these concerns. According to the majority, spending represents an exercise of free speech, a right guaranteed by the First Amendment , and still valid “even if the orator is a corporation” . In reality however, through this ruling the Court gave its consent for lobbies’ interests to prevail over the public interest . Indeed, funding represents a long term investment for special interests who through their support seek to secure future favors from the candidates; an action which could be qualified of “prima facie evidence of corruption” .
Although the Court was forced to reconsider its position on large financing in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co rule that the Due Process Clause requires judges to withdraw themselves when their …show more content…
Advertising the idea that justice can be bought, the study also found that magistrates who receives half of their contributions from business groups could be expected in two-thirds of the time, to cast a pro-business vote. Interestingly, such behavior has only been observed in partisan and non-partisan systems, while no significant relationship between money and voting were found in states using the Missouri Plan” . In Ohio for instance, “seventy-percent of the time, judges are likely to vote in favor of their contributors” . Justice O’Donnell notoriously voted for his donors ninety-one percent of the
In Citizens United v Federal Election Commission , by allowing such groups to spend without limits on communication tools during campaigns, the Supreme Court upheld these concerns. According to the majority, spending represents an exercise of free speech, a right guaranteed by the First Amendment , and still valid “even if the orator is a corporation” . In reality however, through this ruling the Court gave its consent for lobbies’ interests to prevail over the public interest . Indeed, funding represents a long term investment for special interests who through their support seek to secure future favors from the candidates; an action which could be qualified of “prima facie evidence of corruption” .
Although the Court was forced to reconsider its position on large financing in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co rule that the Due Process Clause requires judges to withdraw themselves when their …show more content…
Advertising the idea that justice can be bought, the study also found that magistrates who receives half of their contributions from business groups could be expected in two-thirds of the time, to cast a pro-business vote. Interestingly, such behavior has only been observed in partisan and non-partisan systems, while no significant relationship between money and voting were found in states using the Missouri Plan” . In Ohio for instance, “seventy-percent of the time, judges are likely to vote in favor of their contributors” . Justice O’Donnell notoriously voted for his donors ninety-one percent of the