We didn’t need any more evidence that the role of money in judicial elections is a big problem.  Surveys consistently show that at least 75% of people believe that campaign contributions affect judicial decision-making in the courtroom.  Those numbers are likely to rise because, as the Philadelphia Inquirer reports, yesterday’s cross examination of former Luzerne County President Judge Mark Ciavarella provided even more damning proof of the problem.
 
Ciavarella admitted that he kept for his personal use thousands of dollars in cash that had been contributed to his retention election campaign.  This was illegal, as campaign funds may not be appropriated for personal use.  The admission of this further illegal conduct was made in an attempt to demonstrate that he had other sources of cash aside from the alleged kickbacks he took in exchange for sentencing juveniles to serve time in private detention facilities.  Whether that will convince the jury remains to be seen.
 
But it demonstrates the dangers inherent in the expensive judicial electoral system.  It is almost unthinkable that a sitting judge would keep cash – likely donated by attorneys and others who frequently appeared in the judge’s courtroom – for his personal use.  Still more inconceivable, this violation was not disovered by the authorities – this was an admission freely made as part of his defense to even more serious charges.  How can this be?
 
Self-policing is not enough; campaign finance rules are tougher for judicial campaigns.  For example, judges are not permitted to personally solicit campaign contributions. But if the rules aren’t enforced, there’s no point to having them.
 
Many judges claim that in strict compliance with the spirit of the rules, they don’t even read the lists of donors and are unaware of who contributed to their campaign and in what amount. How is the public to believe this, especially in the face of evidence that a judge was able to keep and use campaign cash donations? And once this fallacy is removed, how is an already very skeptical public to believe that campaign contributions really have no impact on judicial decision-making?
 
There is a simple solution. Get judges out of the fundraising business and get money out of the process for selecting judges. Merit Selection is the answer.