How much justice can be bought? This question arises from judicial campaign contributions and the escalating expenses of state judicial campaigns and the Supreme Court answered it Monday in Caperton v. Massey Energy. The answer is when it is just too much and "extraordinary."
The story began in August 2002 with a $50 million jury verdict for Caperton against Massey Coal, which was found to have engaged in fraudulent misrepresentations, concealment and tortiously interfered with Caperton’s business relationships. The trial court ruled that Massey Coal acted with “utter disregard” for Caperton’s rights and succeded in destroying its businesses.
With an eye on the appeal, Don Blankenship, Massey’s chairman, decided to get him elected a Justice to the West Virginia Supreme Court. Blankenship donated or spent more than $3 million for his preferred candidate, a previously obscure lawyer Brent Benjamin. Blankenship’s $3 million was more than the total amount spent by all other Benjamin supporters put together and three times the amount spent by Benjamin’s own election committee; it was more than $1 million more than the total amount spent by both candidates’ committees. Money talks and Benjamin won a seat on the West Virginia Supreme Court. After Massey appealed, Benjamin twice refused to recuse himself and voted in Massey’s favor to vacate the jury verdict. The Supreme Court decided to review Benjamin's refusal to recuse himself.
The Supreme Court ruled that it was just too much money, that the appearance of justice being for sale was just too strong. The basic inquiry, the Court explained," centers on the contribution’s relative size in comparison to the total amount of money contributed to the campaign, the total amount spent in the election, and the apparent effect such contribution had on the outcome of the election." And Blankenship's $3 million was just too much, the Court explained:
we conclude that Blankenship’scampaign efforts had a significant and disproportionateinfluence in placing Justice Benjamin on the case.Blankenship contributed some $3 million to unseat the incumbent and replace him with Benjamin. His contributions eclipsed the total amount spent by all other Benjamin supporters and exceeded by 300% the amount spent by Benjamin’s campaign committee.
The problem, the Court emphasized, is that it looked like Massey and Blankenship had gotten all the justice that money could buy:
Although there is no allegation of a quid pro quo agreement, the fact remainsthat Blankenship’s extraordinary contributions were made at a time when he had a vested stake in the outcome. Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when—without the consent of the other parties—a man chooses the judge in his own cause. And applying this principle to the judicial electionprocess, there was here a serious, objective risk of actual bias that required Justice Benjamin’s recusal.
Money talks for sure and they say it swears too. When it swears too loud, it violates, according to the Supreme Court, basis principles of due process. This was, the Court said, "an extraordinary situation."
Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com
Comments