The AP’s report on a speech retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor gave Monday at Seattle University Law School opens with this eye catcher:

The first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court says there’s a serious problem with the government in Washington and many other states: They elect their judges.

O’Connor spoke at a conference addressing the recent Caperton v. Massey decision, which we have blogged about previously. “‘Multimillion-dollar judicial campaigns make it difficult to know whether a judge is deciding a case based on the merits or on concerns about reelection,’” opined the former Justice.

O’Connor emphasized how the increase in funding for judicial campaigns poses a threat to the neutrality of the bench: “She told a sold-out audience that threats to judicial independence are rising exponentially as more and more money pours into judicial races around the country.”

Consider that last point in light of a potentially broad decision in the case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, Citizens United v. FEC, which could open a vast new source of corporate funds to be spent on state judicial campaigns. The argument for removing judges from the political process will only get stronger as corporate money plays a bigger role in campaign financing.

Over at Caffeinated Politics, there’s some good advice: “Wisconsin Should Listen to Sandra Day O’ Connor.”  We think that’s a good idea for Pennsylvania as well.

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Citizens United v. FEC. We reported earlier that we joined Justice At Stake and 18 partners in submitting an amici brief in the case, which focuses on restrictions on corporate contributions in elections.  Gavel Grab has extensive coverage of the argument here.

Justice At Stake Executive Director Bert Brandenburg offers an interesting commentary about the case on the blog of the American Constitution Society.  Brandenburg notes:

Just three months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court reached a historic conclusion in Caperton v. Massey. The majority held that the Constitution sets limits on how much special interests can tilt the scales of justice, by requiring judges to step aside in certain case involving their supporters.

Just three months later, Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, the campaign finance case argued today, has seemed to float in an alternate universe. . . .

A comparison of the cases is revealing. While Caperton focused on the courts, its gritty facts should strip away any glossy illusions about what will happen if corporate and union treasuries are turned into private campaign war chests.

Brandenburg goes on to compare the arguments made in both cases, noting that former Solicitor General Ted Olson who argued on behalf of Caperton earlier this year at that time opined that “‘The improper appearance created by money in judicial elections is one of the most important issues facing our judicial system today.’” Yesterday, Olson argued on behalf of Citizens United and opined that “with independent groups, ‘there is less of a threat of corruption because there is no quid pro quo.’”  Brandenburg notes that it is very difficult to square these positions and concludes by posing this chilling hypothetical:

[T]hree Americans in four believe campaign cash affects courtroom decisions. If the federal ban is struck down, similar state laws will be next.

If anyone wonders whether that will have a real-world effect, they should look at Caperton once more and ask this: What if Don Blankenship, the coal executive with litigation in West Virginia, hadn’t been forced to spend from his own pocket? What if he could have just cut a company check to underwrite an election? And what if an unwise ruling makes that the norm, not the exception?

As we wait for a decision in Citizens United, it might be a good time to think about how much worse the situation could become and to ask again why we continue to select judges by a process that requires them to raise campaign funds from individuals and entities likely to appear before them in the future.

Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts (PMC) has joined the Justice at Stake Campaign and 19 other judicial reform groups across the country, in filing an amici curiae (“friends of the court”) brief with the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC case on September 9. The case focuses on campaign finance laws regulating corporate spending in elections.

The Citizens United case should be of particular concern to everyone worried that money is polluting the political process.  The Court is being asked to remove restrictions on campaign spending by corporate groups.  Such a decision “could trigger an election spending war in which companies, unions and other groups could tap directly into their treasuries.”

This would remove a major bulwark preventing runaway spending in judicial elections, a system already suffering from the corrupting influence of campaign cash. Said Justice at Stake’s executive director Bert Brandenburg: “The public needs to be confident that our courts are fair and impartial, and not swayed by election cash. No one wants justice to be for sale.”

As the brief argues:

“Special interest spending on judicial elections-by corporations, labor unions, and other groups-poses an unprecedented threat to public trust in the courts and to the rights of litigants. . . Unleashing corporate treasury funds on judicial elections . . .  will distract judges from their most important job: guaranteeing impartial justice to the litigants who come before them.”

PMC is proud to join the Justice at Stake Campaign and our other partners in opposing any steps that would increase the influence of money in the judicial selection process. Our judges need to be concerned with following the law, not the currents of election cashflow.

More information about Citizens United is available on Gavel Grab.