Good morning!

Special Interests Tip the Scales of Justice in Favor of Corporations

Americans are rightly concerned about significant sums of corporate campaign cash capturing their elected representatives. Even more troubling, though less reported, is the flood of campaign money that has poured into elections for state court justices over the last two decades. Judges are supposed to be independent, fair arbiters of justice. In the Citizens United era, however, judges will increasingly face a choice between siding with the law, or siding with special interests that can spend unlimited sums on their re-elections.

In just the last 12 years, state supreme courts have seen exponentially expensive races, with candidates raising nearly $250 million. The states which have seen the most judicial campaign money – Alabama, Texas, Michigan, Ohio – now have high courts dominated by judges funded by corporate interests. When pro-corporate judges control the bench, individuals suing corporations face higher hurdles. In a recentCenter for American Progress report, we examined cases at these courts from 1992-2010, to get a sense of how the law changed after elections for the courts were flooded with special interest money.

With money playing such a large role in judicial elections, the interest groups with the most money increasingly have an advantage. In courtrooms across our country, big corporations and other special interests are tilting the playing field in their favor.

For example, the insurance industry in Ohio was dissatisfied with rulings against insurance companies and began donating heavily to the campaigns of friendly judicial candidates, who upon taking a seat on the bench — then abruptly reversed those rulings. After the Alabama Supreme Court developed a reputation for sticking up for consumers in arbitration cases, the state’s chamber of commerce and other business groups inundated pro-corporate candidates with campaign cash. Contributions from Alabama’s Chamber of Commerce accounted for 40 percent of all campaign contributions in the most recent high court election in the state. And the new, corporate-funded justices are more likely to throw consumers out of court and into binding arbitration, which many view as inherently biased toward corporate parties.

Decisions in state courts, which hear 95 percent of legal disputes in the United States, have important consequences on ordinary citizens. One of the unfortunate plaintiffs in Alabama, Kimberly White, gave the title to her car as collateral for a short-term loan. She made two interest payments — the equivalent of a 300 percent annual interest rate. She then paid off the loan and got her title back. Alabama Title Loans nevertheless repossessed her car a few months later. As she handed the tow-truck driver the documentation of her repayment, she says he pushed the gas and nearly ran over her. She grabbed the door of the truck, and a passenger allegedly pulled her inside, forcing her into the backseat.

She sued the driver and the lender for assault and wrongful repossession. In July 2011, the Alabama Supreme Court forced White into arbitration, ruling that a binding arbitration clause remained in effect, even after she paid off the loan.

Examples like these are part of a broader trend. In our report, we examined case law from the six states that have seen the most campaign funds since 1992, looking at rulings in cases in which an individual sued a corporation. The states that have seen the most campaign spending have high courts dominated by judges that favor corporate defendants over individual plaintiffs.

A citizen might sue a corporation for a variety of reasons — an unsafe workplace, a dangerous product, or botched medical treatment. How can an ordinary citizen expect a fair trial if the judges hearing the case are funded by big corporations? Special interests are competing for influence in judicial races around the country, but in the states which have seen the most money, corporate special interests dominate fundraising.

The problem of corporate money infecting our state judicial system will only get worse. Spending by “independent” groups has becoming pervasive in judicial elections, as documented by Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center. North Carolina is the one state with a wide-scale public financing system for judicial elections, but the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has now opened the door to limitless, “independent” SuperPAC spending in the state’s judicial elections. All this campaign cash means judgesspend more time focused on fundraising than on the law.

With judges backed by big business taking over our courts, are there any remaining institutions that can hold powerful corporations accountable? Americans will have a harder time using the courts to force employers and manufacturers not to cut back on safety to save money. Consumers will face steeper hurdles in holding accountable banks, payday lenders, and credit card companies that treat them unfairly.

Big business is tightening its grip on our courts. Instead of serving as a last resort for Americans seeking justice, judges are bending the law in a manner that satisfies the concerns of their corporate donors.

Andrew Blotky is the Director of Legal Progress at the Center for American Progress. Billy Corriher is the Associate Director for Research at Legal Progress and author of the recent Center for American Progress report, “Big Business Taking over State Supreme Courts.”

This post is part of the HuffPost Shadow Conventions 2012, a series spotlighting three issues that are not being discussed at the national GOP and Democratic conventions: The Drug War, Poverty in America, and Money in Politics.

*********

Readers: How is everyone doing?  Did yu see the headliner on the Huff PoBlog this BABE.

Natalie:  Of course, I like girls. Oh, but you mean as lovas. :) Well…let’s just say that I am open to experiencing all sorts of love. Not to sound too old or motherly, but I think you would be happier with someone closer to your age. However, I am delighted that you would invite me to your 21st birthday party – thank you so much. Not sure I can make it, but I wish you the happiest of Happy Birthdays.

Whisper: That has been my thoughts for years.

Irene: Like everyone, we all need to do everything we possible can. You know I will.

渭詞: Thanks for your well thought out and well written comment that certainly gets to the point of the censorship, or lack of, with respect to my blog. I have always wanted it to be an open forum for all, and although some readers do object, I will continue to keep it as is. For reasons that I prefer it, as this slice of life is a true reflection of the bigger picture, but also because, who’s got time to pick and choose what should and shouldn’t be read? Seriously though, even if I did have the time, I absolutely wouldn’t censor my blog. As I previously stated, I always wanted it to be an open forum for all. 

I mean, what good would it serve to “read” all of the horrific, racist, bigoted, sexist, etc. comments all on my own…sheltering reality from my readers, and coloring the blog rose-colored? You can’t take away that which exists simply by deleting it from print. Hell, if it was that easy, believe me, I would be the first to do it.

I am all about exposure and transparency on my blog. And illumination is imperative. I can promise you I will remain undaunted.

Lance: Again, another well thought out, well written comment. I completely understand and hear you as you compare your life and treatment from the republican party, with the treatment of muslim women by their men. I would have enjoyed seeing the looks on the faces of your friends and family after stating your thoughts and feelings so articulately. What could they say after that?

Russell: Yes I am. He is a child who has been abused. Please see Cynthia’s comment. My guess is, if he was a little white boy you wouldn’t be jumping on his prosecution.

Ah George: I knew you’d chime in on this one. You and your comments are so predictable.

Well, Harold: What can I say? Next time don’t be so shy. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Don’t you just hate that I just said that? :)

Hi Natalie: You’re back. Did you think I forgot you? Yes, Harry Denton’s is a fave place of mine, mostly because I love seeing Harry. I go there but not very often. Perhaps we will run into each other there sometime. If you see me, please don’t act like Harold and get tongue tied. :)

Hello again Andrew: No apology needed – you did not come on too strong, and I was not offended. It takes a bit more for me to be affected by what is said about me. Although you seem a bit angry at my readers. Perhaps you need more of a break – You did ask for one – Did you take it already, and you’re back for more? See I told ya – You’re either fascinated or addicted. Me too – Welcome to the club. :)

Kelly: Thanks for the plug. It’s too bad the denver man wasn’t a fan.

Miller: So you watched 60 minutes and you actually decided who to vote for based on who prays to God daily? I don’t buy it. Did you even listen to what Romney said? I guess it doesn’t matter – you’re voting color and using religion as an excuse. If you were a businessman you’d use Romney’s background in business as an excuse as well, when it was never important for the past 43 presidents to be businessmen, until a black man with no formal business background became president. All I can say is you better start praying yourself if you vote Romney in because you’re going to need to be praying to the Gods for help if he does win.

Peace out.

Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.

Gratefully your blog host,

michelle

Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)

If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)

Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:

Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129

Thank you for your loyal support!

All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2012

“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream 

" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"