By Mannix Porterfield
Register-Herald Reporter
CHARLESTON — Using tax dollars to finance races for the West Virginia Supreme Court is preferable to candidates raking in millions from special interests in a “dialing for dollars” atmosphere that raises suspicions of tainted justice.
Such was the thrust of a survey taken for the Washington-based Justice at Stake Campaign and disclosed Monday at the Capitol.
In the last decade, Bert Brandenburg, the campaign’s executive director said, candidates for Supreme Court races across America generated some $206 million.
Noncandidate groups spent at least $40 million extra, he told reporters, as Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeffrey Kessler, D-Marshall, prepared to take up a pilot public financing bill.
His committee sent it out unscathed on a close vote, but not all members were pleased with it.
Majority Leader Truman Chafin, D-Mingo, questioned the wisdom of potentially throwing out huge sums of money to 25 or more primary candidates when other needs are more pressing.
“Is this a bigger problem than all the potholes?” he asked.
“I’ve got so many needs in my district that people are begging for money.”
Kessler said the measure, already passed by the House, is being actively promoted by Gov. Joe Manchin.
A poll taken among 600 likely West Virginia voters showed overwhelming support for public financing, from all across the ideological spectrum and by both major political parties.
The same poll also showed Manchin is basking in a 77 percent approval rating, again by both parties.
“Hopefully that will let him use that bully pulpit to get that bill through,” Kessler said.
Under the bill, a candidate who voluntarily accepts only public dollars would get $200,000 in the primary, or $50,000 if there is no opponent.
In the general, the amount rises to $300,000.
Or, if an opponent relying on nonpublic money faces a candidate throwing out the big bucks, Kessler explained, he or she would be eligible for $300,000 in the primary and up to $700,000 in the general.
“Of the states that have run a public financing model, none has backed off,” Kessler said.
“The overwhelming majority of states that made it optional, as our bill will do as well, embrace it.”
Kessler said he was “delighted” that the governor’s Commission on Judicial Reform made public financing one of the major recommendations.
Brandenburg said 78 percent polled felt that campaign money exerts either “a great deal” or “some” influence on courtroom decisions.
The poll, taken by Anzalone Liszt Research, said the sentiment for public financing swelled to 89 percent when those polled are reminded of the massive dollars poured into the 2004 race by Massey Energy on behalf of Justice Brent Benjamin and his subsequent recusal from a case involving the giant coal producer.
Brandenburg said the same poll showed 78 percent don’t want judges to hear cases involving any lawyer, individual or business who spent significant money to help them win their seats.
“No one who goes to court wants to know that their judge is trapped in a money case, dialing for dollars,” Brandenburg said.
Mike Petro, representing the Committee for Economic Development, a group of some 200 CEOs across the country, said candidates accepting huge sums from law firms or businesses raise the issue of compromised impartiality.
“No judge should have to solicit private donations to finance a bid for office,” he said.
“Businesses want a fair and level playing field in which to have their cases heard.”
