Campaign Spending To Get Chummy With the Judges

The February to March issue of "The Economist", brought up the question of faith in the country's Supreme Courts. Our court models have been believed to be a suitable model for other countries but the recent case of Caperton v Massey brings this up to question. Don Blankenship is the chief executive for coal company Massey Energy. Blankenship spent $3 million to help get Brent Benjamin elected to West Virginia's Supreme Court. Did the $3 million Blankenship spent help the Supreme Court rule in his favor?

For the case Caperton v Massey, Judge Benjamin did not recuse himself for the hearing related to Blankenship. Judges are to recuse themselves if their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned" but in most cases, it is the judges themselves who decide whether or not they should be excused. In the case, Hugh Caperton owned a smaller coal company that Massey Energy allegedly bankrupted through fraud. Would Caperton have been given a fairer hearing if Benjamin did recuse himself?

The case of Caperton v Massey shows how public interest might pressure our justice system. Yes, Benjamin may not have been influenced by the 3 million Blankenship spent on him but it seems that way. What this does to out court system in to lessen the faith the people place in it. How much money is allowed to be spent judicial elections? The facts of Caperton v Massey have shown the problems of special-interest spending in judicial elections. What can states do to fix this problem?