Are we creating the best state Supreme Court money can buy? As big money interests spend millions to elect justices, the robed ones will either have to recuse themselves from cases, or rule anyway, raising ethical questions and hurting the court’s credibility.
If this sounds exaggerated, consider the fact that all seven members of a court that rarely makes unanimous decisions last week signed a letter commending the governor and legislature for considering a bill to publicly fund Supreme Court campaigns. “The risk inherent in any non-publicly funded judicial election … is that the public may inaccurately perceive a justice as beholden to individuals or groups that contribute to his or her campaign,” the justices wrote.
As recently as the 2000 Supreme Court race between then-incumbent Diane Sykes and challenger Louis Butler, the two candidates together spent about $430,000, and “independent expenditures” by outside groups was minimal. No one, in short, was able to buy a justice’s election.
Contrast this to last year’s contest between Linda Clifford and the eventual winner, Annette Ziegler, who together spent $2.7 million. More flagrant, some $3.1 million was spent by outside groups, mostly for Ziegler, and mostly from the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, which spent some $2.2 million on “educational ads” that relentlessly attacked Clifford.
As an excellent piece by Jeff Mayers noted, one national study found that pro-business groups accounted for 90 percent of all independent spending on TV ads in high court races in 2006. For those who doubt you can buy elections this way, Mayers quotes a story in Governing magazine, which found that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has ties to the WMC, spent $120 million on pro-business candidates from 2002 to 2006, and its chosen candidates won every single one of those contests.
The chamber, as I’ve noted in past columns, has targeted state races for Supreme Court and state attorney in order to assure the election of candidates sympathetic to business. If they believe this will make them the victors in court cases, why should the public doubt that justices are being bought?
Last week, Ziegler recused herself from a land planning case after being asked to do so by the town of West Point, which was opposed in the case by the Wisconsin Realtors and Wisconsin Builders Association, who together donated $17,250 to Ziegler. As a result, the high court deadlocked 3-3 and sent the case back to the lower court, making our highest court anything but supreme.
Meanwhile, since no one asked Ziegler to recuse herself from a tax case where the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce has an interest, she’s not going to – despite the $2.2 million the group spent to get her elected, or 128 times more money than the real estate groups spent. Is it possible for Ziegler to rule without being influenced by this? Maybe. But don’t expect the average citizen to believe this.
Meanwhile, Justice Butler, who was appointed to the court by Gov. Jim Doyle, is running for re-election this spring, and experts predict the race could cost $8 million. You can be sure Butler will be targeted by the WMC, which could achieve a trifecta, having also spent $2.5 million to get J.B. Van Hollen elected attorney general.
While the national report mentioned above stresses the role of business, it also includes statistics showing that attorneys have always donated to Supreme Court candidates, often for liberal candidates. But business groups have systematized and heightened the impact of donations on the independence of state high courts.
In the wake of all the bad publicity for Ziegler, Butler has decided to disclose any donations made to him by parties to a case. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel actually gave Butler a front-page headline for failing to disclose a $500 donation from an attorney who appeared before his court. This is setting the bar rather high for court members (or will the front-page headlines only be devoted to justices seen as more liberal?), and will put more pressure on justices to recuse themselves, meaning more cases could be sent back to the lower courts.
It is bad enough that legislators depend on special interest donations. But they at least are expected to listen to all the lobbyists and advocates and competing interests of citizens in creating new laws. The high court is supposed to be removed from the rough and tumble of daily politics and should be interpreting the law as written, not according to the pressure of interest groups.
Public financing of all campaigns for public office is unlikely to succeed and would be costly. But a bill targeting just the seven supremes would be far cheaper, and would ensure that the high court is truly insulated from special interests. The Senate has already approved such a bill. The alternative to public financing is a court that becomes increasingly compromised or irrelevant.
United Way’s Big Salaries
Sue Dragisic was a champion fundraiser for the United Performing Arts Fund in the 1980s and 1990s, and since she took over at United Way, the group has seen its annual drive rise from $28 million in 1999 to $43.7 million this year. I have raised questions before as to whether the annual figures have been inflated through creative accounting, but even so, her record is impressive.
The group has also claimed that Dragisic was a bargain. In 2003, it said Dragisic earned $150,000, which was $57,000 below the median for United Way chapters raising more than $25 million. But Dragisic earned an additional $73,210 that year for “contributions to employee benefit plans & deferred compensation,” plus $4,259 for an expense account, meaning her total compensation was actually more like $227,469.
The most recent federal tax form for the group shows that Dragisic’s compensation has since risen to $273,424. Once again, to keep the salary figure low (at $169,808), some $98,000 was put into the deferred compensation category.
Meanwhile the group has seen its pay to all top officials rise significantly. Compensation for key officers and employees skyrocketed from $259,288 in 2003 to $427,007 in 2006, an increase of 65 percent in just three years. The group now has four employees who earn more than $125,000 in annual compensation and at least three others who get more than $100,000. But once again, their salaries don’t look as high because anywhere from $14,500 to $28,000 per employee is paid in the form of deferred compensation.
We can argue whether this rise in pay is justified. I’m dubious. But it’s difficult to have this discussion if the media doesn’t even report the figures.
The Anti-Union Democrat Strikes Again
Note two stories from last week: the state Department of Corrections is running up overtime because it lacks staff, and the Department of Revenue is eliminating most of its regional offices (and these staff members have been proven to be cost-effective, gaining more additional tax revenue than the cost of their salaries). Are these more examples of Gov. Doyle’s goal of cutting the number of state employees? Certainly looks like it.
How would Jackie Robinson have dealt with steroids? Check The Sports Nut.
