A May 2007 report of the Committee for Economic Development, published by EarthTimes.org,points out the growing financial influence of corporations upon our judiciary. Judgesarenecessarily needing more and more money toseekhigher judgeship positions, and the corporations have the financingneeded, so as the report shows the corporations are willing to underwritethejudgeswhom they feel will be prejudicial to their cause should it become before the court. This is just another aspect of the power of Corporations in the Information Age.
Since the judiciary has become more activist in "making" laws in America as opposed to the legislature, it has become beneficial for special interests to influence financially or otherwise a judge to "pass"legislation,thanto go through the rigorous task oflobbyingCongressmen andSenators to propose and debatea Bill.
After all, this method is much cheaper, American, faster,anddoesnotincludedebates,committees,orthesignature of theexecutive (president or governor)to become "law." Further, itdoes it face the possibility ofa veto,which requires two-thirds of both Houses to overcome. Judicial legislation is the best of all worldsbecause one judge is more powerfulthan two-thirds of Congress.

Since the value of getting a special law "enacted" on behalf of itsbuyer, the competitiverate of buying ajudge is gettinghigher and higher.In the business world, who wouldn'tshell outa million dollars to getajudge in theretogarner them over a hundred million dollarsto their business? Thisispreciselywhat is happening in America.
Now add to this ingredient the doctrine of "judicial immunity" where all judges are immune from any lawsuit that anyone,who suffers damage from the acts of the judge, may bring.I have just described to you the optimum of tyranny. Can you think of anything morebazaar or far fetched from justice? at least within a nation of"Liberty and Justice for All!" Some, such as former U.S.Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, are advocatingabolishingelecting judges."I hope that every state that elects judges in partisan elections will consider reforms," says Justice O'Connor. She thinks that not letting the people vote for their judges is the answer. What do you think is the answer?
Report Shows Spread of Special Interest Pressure, Growing Clout of Business Groups in State Supreme Court Elections Posted: Thu, 17 May 2007 Author: Committee for economic Development http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,107790.shtml
WASHINGTON, May 17 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Special interest pressure is metastasizing into a permanent national threat to the fairness and impartiality of America's courts, according to a major new report from the Justice at Stake Campaign and its partners, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and the National Institute for Money in State Politics. At the same time, a new survey conducted by Zogby International for the Committee for Economic Development shows that four out of five business leaders worry that campaign contributions have a major influence on decisions rendered by judges.

"Justice at Stake's report shows how in too many states, judicial elections are becoming political prizefights where partisans and special interests seek to install judges who will answer to them instead of the law and the constitution," said former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. "I hope that every state that elects judges in partisan elections will consider reforms."

"The 2006 election cycle was the most threatening year yet to the fairness and impartiality of America's courts," said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of the Justice at Stake Campaign. "The good news is that a broad cross-section of American civic, legal and business leaders appear ready to say enough is enough, and to work for reforms that will protect our courts."

The data comes even as a new national group -- the Democratic Judicial Campaign Committee -- is vowing to spend millions to unseat judges and justices across the country.

Among the key findings of The New Politics of Judicial Elections 2006: -- TV ads in high court campaigns ran in 10 of 11 states with contested elections, compared to four of 18 states in 2000. Average television spending per state was $1.6 million, a new record. Groups on the political right sponsored an overwhelming majority of independent expenditure television advertising. -- Median fundraising by candidates for state high courts hit a record high of $243,910. In other words, getting to the bench has never been so expensive for so many. Five states set aggregate candidate fundraising records for high court campaigns (AL, KY, GA, OR, WA). -- State Supreme Court elections attracted record sums from business interests, a reflection of the importance of state courts in setting corporate damage payments. Campaign finance analysis shows that business gave $2 for every $1 donated by lawyers directly to candidates, and independent committees aligned with business interests dramatically outspent groups on the left. -- Judicial candidates presented a united front in overwhelmingly rejecting pressure-filled questionnaires from special interest groups. For example, only 17 percent of candidate's for seats on Florida's trial courts responded to a question demanding their position on same- sex marriage.

Television advertising has become a major weapon for groups doing battle over state high courts. In 2006, pro-business groups accounted for 90 percent of all independent spending on TV ads in high court races.

"The responsibility for protecting the courts is shared by all branches of government. Legislative and executive leaders ought to seriously consider public financing of judicial campaigns, while judiciaries must be vigilant about campaign conduct and recusal rules," said James Sample, Counsel with the Brennan Center's Democracy Program and co-author of the report.

According to the Zogby survey of business leaders, 79 percent believe that campaign contributions made to judges have at least some influence on their decisions in the courtroom. Fully 90 percent are concerned that campaign contributions and political pressure will make judges accountable to politicians and special interest groups instead of the law and the Constitution. Most significantly, the poll showed strong support for finding ways to decrease the fundraising arms race now common in many state high court campaigns.

"These results confirm the uneasiness that many in business have with the role of money in judicial campaigns," said Charles Kolb, President of the Committee for Economic Development. "A fair and impartial judiciary -- free from the influences of big money -- is good for our country, the economy, and business.