Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!

In her discussion with retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson said she still believes elections are the best system for choosing judges, but there are “defects” that need fixing. AP report:

“I favor elections in Wisconsin. I think we should work to repair the defects that have appeared,” she said. “We have had the elective system since 1848. It’s up to all of us to make sure the elective system works.”

Her solution, of course, is public financing of elections. In a recent Q&A with the Madison Capital Times, she said:

Q. Do the larger donations coming to Supreme Court campaigns from certain groups raise a concern?

A. Polls seem to show that the public believes that judges are influenced by contributions. Whether that perception is accurate or not really sometimes is beside the point because the perception can become the reality. That’s why the seven judges on this court all signed a letter supporting public campaign financing for justices of this court so that much of the money is removed from the race so no one will have a perception that justice can be bought in this state.

The obvious thoughts are these:

1. most of the money spent in the election was by outside interests, 527s and 501(c)(4)s, not campaigns. Thus, public financing will not remove most of the money from the system.

2. During the Q&A, she mentioned recusal. Judges very rarely recuse themselves because they received a donation from a lawyer or party before them. Some have suggested that judges should do so more often, or even automatically. If that is the case, WMC should donate $10000 to Abrahamson, Bradley, and Crooks so they are never on another case where WMC has an amicus brief!

Here’s another thought that I’ve been processing but haven’t seen mentioned elsewhere:

Everyone agrees that the most, I’ll say aggressive, ad of the campaign cycle was the Gableman “Reuben Lee Mitchell” spot. If we had taxpayer financing of elections, this spot would still have been run!

You think the ad was offensive? How do you like the idea of your hard-earned tax dollars paying to put it on the air?

Tax-funded financing of elections for judges is not the answer (if there is a problem).

• Steve Kagen's "Sleaze" Peddler - July 21st, 2008
• J. T. Dugan for ED-WI - July 16th, 2008
• Unfortunateness in the 8th - July 10th, 2008
• Good signs from new GB Bishop - July 9th, 2008
• DC Tourism Tips 1 and 2 - July 6th, 2008