Article Options

Costly judicial campaign stirs up debate over ethics

Monday, March 28, 2005 6:39 AM CST

SPRINGFIELD (AP) - The big money that helped Justice Lloyd Karmeier reach the state Supreme Court is now raising big ethical questions.

The plaintiffs in a major lawsuit want Karmeier to step aside from the case, arguing he may not be able to rule impartially after accepting donations from business executives and groups involved in the lawsuit.

Similar conflict-of-interest complaints could arise in future cases, too.

The court is already scheduled to hear a challenge to state fee increases from the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, a Karmeier backer in last year's record-breaking judicial campaign. Many of Karmeier's donors have a deep interest in malpractice cases and state legislation that someday also may reach the Supreme Court.

Legal experts say the Republican justice is in a legal gray area that more judges are likely to enter as bigger and bigger donations flow into judicial races.

"This is a real murky area for judges," said Gregory Ogden, an expert on legal ethics at Pepperdine University. "So long as we have elected judges, we're going to have many issues of this type."

Some experts worry the growing cost of judicial races is reducing public trust in the courts. One recent poll found that 87 percent of Illinois voters think judges' decisions are influenced by campaign contributions.

Karmeier and his Democratic opponent, Gordon Maag, spent a combined $9.3 million last year in their battle for the southern Illinois seat on the Supreme Court. It was the most expensive judicial race in American history, experts say.

Most of Maag's money came from trial lawyers, while Karmeier was backed by doctors and business groups looking to prevent frivolous lawsuits and limit awards in cases that go to court.

Karmeier's donors include participants in the second-largest lawsuit in Illinois history - a $1.2

billion judgment against State Farm Insurance Co. over the use of inferior parts to repair damaged automobiles.

State Farm, its executives and a law firm representing the company gave money, either directly or through groups, to Karmeier.

The plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit say Karmeier should not take part in deciding the case. While not alleging that Karmeier would be swayed by the donations, they say in motions filed with the court that it would look bad and judicial ethics require judges to recuse themselves even over the appearance of impropriety.

The plaintiffs don't argue that judges should step aside from every case involving donors, but they say this case involves unusual circumstances, most importantly that it was being considered by the Supreme Court at the same time State Farm was helping Karmeier get elected.

Karmeier has refused to step aside, and the Supreme Court ruled without explanation that he doesn't have to. The plaintiffs' attorneys have asked the court to reconsider.

Karmeier, citing the pending court case, declined to discuss the issue. But his actions were defended by Edward Murnane, a political ally and president of the lawsuit reform group Illinois Civil Justice League.

Murnane noted Illinois ethics rules don't require judges to recuse themselves from cases involving donors. The Supreme Court couldn't function if judges stepped aside every time a case involved a donor or a group with past ties to a judge, he said.

Democratic Justice Thomas Kilbride does not recuse himself from cases involving unions just because he was once a labor attorney, Murnane pointed out. He also argued that voters knew about Karmeier's ties to the business community and endorsed them by choosing him over Maag.

"There was no doubt in anybody's mind who was supporting these candidates," Murnane said.

Critics say that just demonstrates the appearance of bias that can erode public confidence.

In a poll conducted over the winter, 87 percent of registered voters surveyed said judges are influenced by donations, and 85 percent said judges are influenced by special-interest groups. The poll was conducted for the Campaign for Political Reform and the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University.

Last week, Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Ann McMorrow convened a meeting that included the Campaign for Political Reform, other justices and leaders of Illinois bar associations to discuss whether to review the judicial election system in Illinois.

The methods for electing or appointing judges vary from state to state. Some options include public financing of Supreme Court races, limits on donations to judges or scrapping judicial elections and appointing judges instead.

The American Bar Association's model ethics code suggests requiring judges to step aside from cases if any of the parties have given more than some specific dollar amount. It also suggests that judges tell their campaign organizations to set a limit on the amount of money they accept from any particular donor.

So far, no states have adopted those restrictions, experts said.

Judicial races are no longer inexpensive contests funded by lawyers who know the candidates' track records. Instead, they are big-money battles waged with money from national groups and obscure organizations that reveal little about the source of their funds.

The Campaign for Political Reform says two groups donated a combined $830,000 in the Karmeier-Maag race without filing disclosure reports, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce became the state's biggest political donor over the past two years by giving the Republican Party more than $2 million for Karmeier's race.

"When people start to think about judges as Republican or Democrat or the business judge or the labor judge, that's very corrosive to the legitimacy of the judicial process," said Kent Redfield, a campaign finance expert at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

On the Net:

Campaign for Political Reform: http://www.ilcampaign.org

American Bar Association: http://www.abanet.org/cpr