Concerns related to attacks on judicial candidates and attempts by business and political interests to
influence judicial elections are examined.
Without missing a beat, a coalition of out - of - state corporate interests came into the state, dumped money there to
influence the judicial elections, and eventually ousted the pro-consumer Supreme Court judges who struck down these laws.
Not exact matches
In a 2000 report, the ABA Commission on State
Judicial Selection Standards warned of the «alarming increase in efforts by special interests to influence the outcome of judicial elections through both financial contributions and attack campaigning
Judicial Selection Standards warned of the «alarming increase in efforts by special interests to
influence the outcome of
judicial elections through both financial contributions and attack campaigning
judicial elections through both financial contributions and attack campaigning.»
Finally, regardless of whether you decide to contribute to
judicial campaigns or not and regardless of whether you think contributions are likely to affect an individual judge or not, you should avoid claiming to a client, or to anyone else, that contributing to an
election campaign might be a viable way to
influence a judge's decision.
A great article out this week in Mother Jones, discusses something we've been talking about, and scared of, for years... money and
influence in
judicial elections.
This report is the fourth in a series on different policies that could help mitigate the
influence of corporate campaign cash in
judicial elections.
Three states have subsequently adopted public financing of
judicial elections to protect the independence of the judiciary from the
influence of groups like the Chamber of Commerce and Insurance companies.