A report released last month by the Justice at Stake examines how special interest is influencing state judicial campaigns. The report, titled "The New Politics of Judicial Elections," examines how this influence is undermining the fairness and impartiality of America's courts. According to the report, "too many states, judicial elections are becoming political prizefights where partisans and special interests seek to install judges who will answer to them instead of the law and the constitution."

In commenting specifically on the discussion of Michigan's recent Supreme Court elections, Rich Robinson of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network said in a news release:

The report specifically highlights a 2006 Michigan Supreme Court race featuring incumbent Justice Maura Corrigan. Although she faced nominal opposition, Justice Corrigan raised nearly $680,000 and also benefited from an additional $700,000 worth of television advertising support from the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Another Michigan Supreme Justice facing token opposition, Michael Cavanagh, raised over $300,000 for his race.

Another concern is that the special interest money that pays for most political ads goes unreported. Since 2000, Michigan Supreme Court campaigns have been significantly influenced by anonymously funded television advertisements. Reform advocates point out that because of weak campaign finance laws, campaign ads that do not explicitly recommend a candidate do not have to be reported.

"Under our current structure, spending is not reported, contributors are not disclosed and there is no restriction against using corporate or union treasury funds to pay for judicial campaign ads," said Rich Robinson, director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network. "Furthermore, once our newly elected justices take the bench, there is no standard for recusal that prohibits them from hearing their financial supporter's case."

Major findings of the report include:

• TV ads in high court campaigns ran in 10 of 11 states with contested elections, compared to four of 18 states in 2000. Average television spending per state was $1.6 million, a new record. An overwhelming majority of independent expenditure television advertising was sponsored by groups on the political right.
• Median fundraising by candidates for state high courts hit a record high of $243,910. In other words, getting to the bench has never been so expensive for so many. Five states set aggregate candidate fundraising records for high court campaigns (AL, KY, GA, OR, WA).
• State Supreme Court elections attracted record sums from business interests, a reflection of the importance of state courts in setting corporate damage payments. Campaign finance analysis shows that business gave $2 for every $1 donated by lawyers directly to candidates, and independent committees aligned with business interests dramatically outspent groups on the left.
• Judicial candidates presented a united front in overwhelmingly rejecting pressure-filled questionnaires from special interest groups. For example, only 17 percent of candidate's for seats on Florida's trial courts responded to a question demanding their position on same-sex marriage.