From the Tribune (Editorial):


Judges and their donors

Published March 19, 2007

Illinois has become a pioneer in state judicial races, but not in a wonderful way. Three years ago, Republican Lloyd Karmeier and Democrat Gordon Maag ran for the Supreme Court in a race so nasty it should have carried a parental advisory, and so expensive it set a national record for such races. The candidates in that contest, won by Karmeier, spent $9.3 million.

Last year, the extravagance showed up lower on the ballot, as Democrat Bruce Stewart beat Republican Stephen McGlynn in a race that cost more than $3.3 million, the most ever nationally for an intermediate appeals court race.

This type of spending binge strikes some Illinois legislators as a terrible thing. Last month a Senate committee approved a bill intended to stop it. "It creates a perception that public servants are bought," said Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago), the sponsor. His bill would attempt to replace privately financed judicial campaigns with a system of public financing. But it does more to demonstrate the perils of halfway measures than to cure the ills of the status quo.

The bill would provide Supreme Court candidates with a maximum of $750,000 in state money, while those running for the Appellate Court would get up to $250,000. The funds would be raised through a state income tax checkoff. Candidates could solicit donations as well, but no one would be allowed to give more than $25. There is also an incentive to go the public-funding route: If one candidate takes public funds, but her opponent doesn't and raises more than 105 percent of the maximum, the first candidate would get twice the usual amount.

The sponsors are on to something. Private funding of judicial campaigns does raise questions about what the donors expect in return. But let's not confuse the symptoms with the illness. As long as judicial offices are filled by elections, candidates need money to acquaint voters with them and their views--and this bill, though it would free them from fundraising, would leave them too little money to communicate effectively.

Say what you will about the Karmeier-Maag and Stewart-McAllen races, they served to inform voters on what was at stake. Less spending would have left many Illinoisans with little basis on which to vote.

When it comes to public cynicism, it's not clear this approach would help. Trial lawyers and business organizations aren't going to sit out races just because of public financing. Individuals and groups would no longer get to donate to many campaigns, but they could still spend as much as they want airing their own ads--creating the possibility that favored candidates would feel indebted once in office.

The real problem is not judicial campaigns that are privately financed but judicial campaigns, period. A better remedy is to turn these offices over to a merit selection process designed to minimize the role of politics in the courts.

This bill is a well-intended effort to address some shortcomings of the existing system. But it makes a better case for replacing that system than trying to reform it.