 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
Judges Shouldn't Take Money
Recently, a major league pitcher took a perfect game into the ninth inning. With two out in the ninth, the last batter hit a soft ground ball and appeared to be out at first base. Unfortunately for the pitcher, the umpire mistakenly called the batter safe.
Instant replay video clearly showed the batter being thrown out at first but the umpire’s call remained the same. Since baseball does not have an “instant replay” appeals rule, the perfect game and the pitcher’s place in the baseball record books were lost.
National news media carried the story. The “perfect game that wasn’t” will be the cause of debate in the world of baseball for some time to come.
In the world of politics, all political campaigns run on money. It costs money to print campaign brochures, advertise and make telephone calls to prospective voters, all things necessary to win an election. Judicial campaigns have legitimate monetary expenses as do campaigns for the legislature and other elected offices.
Typically, the major contributors to judicial campaigns are attorneys and law firms who appear before, or who might have cases decided by, a judge or other candidate aspiring for election to the bench. Corporations contribute to the campaigns of candidates for the legislature in the hope that the elected representatives will look favorably upon the interests of those very same corporations when it comes time for statutes to be passed into law. It is no different in judicial races. Some lawyers and corporations contribute to the campaigns of judicial candidates anticipating favorable treatment in the future should that candidate be elected judge. On the other hand, some attorneys and others donate to judicial campaigns because they truly believe the particular candidate is the best person for the position. Of course, it is often difficult to determine the motivation behind any monetary contribution in a political race.
The Illinois Supreme Court has written rules which guide and mandate the conduct of lawyers and judges in our state.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 67 states that, “A (judicial) candidate shall not personally solicit or accept campaign contributions.” The same rule permits a candidate for the judiciary to, “…establish committees of responsible persons to conduct campaigns for the candidate through media advertisements, brochures, mailings, candidate forums and other means not prohibited by law. Such committees may solicit and accept reasonable campaign contributions (and) manage the expenditure of funds for the candidate’s campaign … Such committees are not prohibited from soliciting and accepting reasonable campaign contributions and public support from lawyers…”
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62 states that, “A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.” That same rule goes on to state, “A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself or herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”
Notwithstanding those rules, nothing prohibits judges and judicial candidates in Illinois from attending their own fundraising events sponsored by the judge’s campaign committee. In fact, it is commonplace for a judicial candidate to attend fundraising events run by the committee for his or her campaign. Nothing specifically prohibits judicial candidates from examining lists of those who made monetary contributions to their campaigns through Supreme Court Rule 67 campaign committees. From time to time, judicial candidates directly thank contributors for donations of money to their campaign for election to the bench.
Baseball umpire’s salaries are not paid by individual ball teams. But, suppose for a moment that the opposing team had been paying the salary of the umpire who made that wrong call at the end of the “almost perfect game.” If that had occurred, there would have been a national outcry over a sporting event the likes of which we haven’t seen in quite some time. The very essence of the integrity of professional baseball would have been called into question. “How could that guy be umpiring that game when he was being paid by the other team?” If that had been the case, would fans ever again believe that umpires were unbiased and fair in calling games? Would umpires ever again be viewed as neutral “judges” of balls, strikes, foul balls and outs? Would the honest mistakes of umpires even be tolerated?
Not likely.
We expect our courtroom judges to be neutral “umpires” of the law. We don’t expect judges to be influenced in their judicial decisions by the fact of prior monetary campaign contributions. After all, it shouldn’t matter that an attorney, or an individual, or a corporate group in a particular lawsuit previously donated money to get the judge elected. The only things that should matter in any given case are the law and the evidence in that case. Nothing else should be considered by the judge when he or she makes a courtroom decision.
In life, appearance is often reality. Judges must scrupulously avoid even the appearance of impropriety because to do otherwise would be to call into question the very integrity of the courts and our system of justice.
Fans wouldn’t stand for an umpire’s salary being paid by one of the two teams involved in a baseball game. Why then do we ignore or at least tolerate judicial campaigns being funded by lawyers, corporations and others who may be involved in lawsuits brought before that very same judge? Even if the judge made a fair and proper legal decision in a case involving a campaign contributor, would people hearing about the judge’s decision in the case truly believe that the judge was unbiased? Or, would they think that the money previously donated to the judge’s election fund by the winner of the lawsuit resulted in that side winning the lawsuit? As in the example of the baseball umpire who is paid by one team, if a judge made an honest mistake would people continue to believe in the integrity of our legal system after hearing about the winning side’s prior money contribution to that judge’s election fund?
Not likely.
Would there be an appearance of judicial impropriety in such a situation? Count on it.
All election campaigns run on money. That said, we need to explore new ways to finance judicial election campaigns including public financing and/or partial public financing models. By adopting such plans, we will truly avoid the potential appearance of impropriety in court cases and further strengthen the standing of the courts in our society.
Mike Perillo
Return to Main |
|
|
|
|
|
