No, No Says Supreme Court, Let’s Play Fair
The Supreme Court ruled 5-to-4 in favor of requiring elected judges to disqualify themselves from cases in which one of the parties directly contributed a large sum of money to the judge’s campaign. The New York Times spells out the story behind this decision by saying that it, “ordered the chief justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court to recuse himself from a $50 million case against a coal company whose chief executive had spent $3 million to elect him.”
The stink of the issue is mainly the apparent infringement of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” reads the Fifth Amendment, which is generally interpreted to guarantee a trial under the terms of a fair trial. This decision is the first time that election contributions were recognized as affecting the fairness of the trial.
Campaign contributions are a mainstay in political life, and the way that these contributions can affect the outcomes—not only of the election, but of many entrenched issues that stem from the election of any particular figure—can be massive. Looking into this particular case the issues are apparent and very real.
The lowdown: The initial case was settled in 2002, several small mining companies sued A.T. Massey Coal Company for a combined $50 million, claiming that their fraudulent acts had driven them (Massey’s competing firms) out of business. The court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding the other companies $50 million. Massey appealed, and between the time of the first case and the appeal there was an election for justices of the court. Don Blankenship (CEO of Massey) contributed approximately $3 million to a campaign for Brent D. Benjamin, a Republican, who won the election, unseating Warren R. McGraw as the chief justice.
-
Fresh Tracks
-
Get Familiar
ProtomanMeet Protoman, one of Florida’s chronically-slept-on rappers. Steam an exclusive new track from his upcoming album.
