Traverse City Record-Eagle


October 15, 2013

Another View: 'Dark money' in judicial races is a scandal

In no branch of government is it more important for a public official to be beyond even a hint of conflict of interest than in the judiciary. Our judicial system is based on the presumption of impartiality, and anyone going into court has the right to assume that his or her case will be decided on the basis of its merits, not on the political leanings, financial interests or campaign contributors of the judge.

When public confidence in the impartiality of judges erodes, the very integrity of the justice system is in danger.

And that’s the scenario we’re facing in Michigan, where a broken campaign finance system means we don’t know who’s financing judicial campaigns and we don’t know to whom judges might be beholden.

Since 2000, Michigan has seen some of the nastiest, most partisan and most expensive Supreme Court races in the country and, according to the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, most of the campaign spending has been off the books — so-called “dark money,” unreported spending by anonymous donors on thinly veiled “issue ads.”

About $5 million in campaign committee and independent spending was reported in the 2012 Supreme Court races, but the MCFN documented $12 million in dark money spent on television ads.

Dark money may even be seeping into lower-level judicial races. Last year, an estimated $2 million was spent by anonymous sources in an unsuccessful effort to unseat two Oakland County Circuit Court judges. The specter of wealthy groups or individuals trying to throw out of office a judge who ruled against them — without leaving any “fingerprints” — is a very real one in our state.

It doesn’t have to be that way. This month, the State Bar of Michigan requested that Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, the state’s top elections official, reverse the 2004 legal interpretation of her predecessor, Terry Lynn Land, that exempted “issue ads” — those ads that trash and badmouth candidates but don’t explicitly urge voting for or against someone — from public reporting requirements.

Text Only

Opinion Poll
AP Video
Captain of Sunken SKorean Ferry Arrested Raw: Fire Destroys 3 N.J. Beachfront Homes Raw: Pope Presides Over Good Friday Mass Raw: Space X Launches to Space Station Superheroes Descend on Capitol Mall Man Charged in Kansas City Highway Shootings Obama Awards Navy Football Trophy Anti-semitic Leaflets Posted in Eastern Ukraine Raw: Magnitude-7.2 Earthquake Shakes Mexico City Ceremony at MIT Remembers One of Boston's Finest Raw: Students Hurt in Colo. School Bus Crash Raw: Church Tries for Record With Chalk Jesus Raw: Faithful Celebrate Good Friday Worldwide Deadly Avalanche Sweeps Slopes of Mount Everest Police Arrest Suspect in Highway Shootings Drought Concerns May Hurt Lake Tourism Vermont Goat Meat Gives Refugees Taste of Home Calif. Investigators Re-construct Fatal Bus Cras Mayor Rob Ford Launches Re-election Campaign Appellate Court Hears Okla. Gay Marriage Case