Thursday, September 30, 2010
Over the past decade, the amount of campaing financing for state judicial races has increased dramatically. The Supreme Court has always classified this money spending as constitutional under the right to free speech. In general, it's been shown that the more money that is spent on campaigns means the more knowledge voters have because they can access information more easily. So there are obvious pros to this. But are there some obvious cons as well? What happens if a large contributor to a campaign finds itself in court later on, is it fair for them to be tried under that particular elected judge? I think the line gets pretty fine at that point. To facilitate avoidance of these conflicts, many states are heading towards publicly funded state judicial campaigns so as not to give off the impression of improper financial influence.