A simple plan to get "big bucks" out of judicial elections

It is long-past time for the Illinois Supreme Court to make a new rule to get “big bucks” out of Illinois Judicial Elections. That rule should be designed to remove the incentive for donors to dump obscene amounts of money into Illinois Judicial elections.

What am I talking about?

Example 1. Lawyer X runs to fill a vacancy on the Illinois Supreme Court. X is a lifelong Democrat. To get Lawyer X on the Supreme Court, The Democratic Governor of Illinois contributes $1 million and the Democratic Speaker of the Illinois House contributes $350,000, to Lawyer X’s “Campaign Committee.” They do so because they believe it is more likely Lawyer X will approve the Congressional reapportionment map drawn by Democrats, than his Republican opponent.

Example 2. Lawyer X wins election and is now Mr. Justice X. After serving his 10-year term, he faces a “Retention Election.” He has no opponent. The ballot simply askes, “Shall Judge X be retained.” Q and Z are two Republican billionaires. Because Q and Z consider Justice X likely to vote for the Democrat’s reapportionment map, which they consider outrageously “gerrymandered,” they create a “Committee for an Honest Judiciary” and fund it to the tune of $7 million. With that $7 million they plan to run newspaper ads labeling Justice X, who has declined to recuse himself from consideration of that reapportionment case, “The best Judge money can buy,” “The governor’s pet judge.” Etc.

The governor and the speaker will be de facto parties-defendant (in their official capacities) in the suit to have the Democrat’s map declared “unconstitutional. The “CHJ” will also funds TV spots, bellowing that “Justice X, who has refused to recuse himself, after having taken $1,350,000 from the two defendants, is guilty of creating a gross appearance of impropriety.” And the “CHJ” will probably go on to accuse Justice X of “corruption” — “No honest judge takes $1.35 million as a campaign donation, and then sits on a case involving the donors.”

Lost in the hyperbole is the concept that the money wasn’t really given to the judge; it was, instead, given to his “campaign committee,” and that committee never told the judge of the S1.35 million. But then, of course, news of the donations makes all the newspapers.

My point is this: If Justice X sits on a case where a party donated $1.35 million, he paints a target on his back, and puts himself in a “no win” situation. Even if his decision is impeccably correct, roughly half the voters in the state will focus only upon the fact that he has taken $1.35 million from a party. This brings not only Justice X into disrepute, but, even worse, it brings the entire Illinois Judiciary into disrepute.

Can limits be put on the amount of money a person, corporation or other entity can contribute to a judicial campaign? Could the Supreme Court write a rule that said, “No judicial campaign committee shall receive a donation from any person, corporation, or other entity exceeding $100?” $500? $1,000? (Note: the sum would have to be small enough that no reasonable person would believe that such a campaign donation would be sufficient to influence any rationale judge.)

But would such severe limits pass constitutional muster? I don’t know. Donations have been equated with free speech in the case law.

I would therefore opt for an alternate “solution.” I would strongly suggest that the justices of the Illinois Supreme Court write the following Rule of Judicial Conduct:

“After his/her election or retention, the judge shall promptly make himself aware of all donations made to his “campaign committee “and keep a list of all those donations on hand. 

 

"The judge shall have a duty to recuse himself/herself in all cases where it appears that donating person, corporation or other entity has donated directly or indirectly more than $500 to the judge’s “campaign committee.”

I suggest the sum of $500 because no Illinois Judge, making an annual salary of $212,058 to $258,456 is going to be bribed for $500.

I am reasoning that if a litigant, who otherwise would donate $1 million or $5 million to a Judge’s “campaign committee,” knows that the judge won’t be able to hear his case, the incentive to donate vast amounts of money to the judge’s “campaign committee” will immediately disappear.

Maybe I am a “Pollyanna.” But I don’t like seeing judges paint targets on their own backs.

I don’t like judges doing anything that is likely to create an appearance of impropriety. The conduct of a single judge can bring an entire judiciary into disrepute — even if it is “ethical” under existing rules.

The drafters of the 1970 Illinois Constitution’s Judicial Article wanted to get money out of judicial elections. It’s time for the Illinois Supreme Court to implement that intent.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on June 11, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea