This is an interesting look by Jordana Mishory on the impact of the recent Supreme Court ruling on judicial disqualification and how it may play out in Florida judicial elections:

Campaign watchers say the state’s $500 cap on judicial campaign contributions means it’s next to impossible to buy the type of influence alleged in the U.S. Supreme Court case, which examined the impact of $3 million coming from a single source.

Further, my buddy Chuck Lichtman (who did great work during the Presidential election) says the same thing:

“When you consider that an average Broward judge race costs anywhere between $75,000 and $150,000, and the state limits [donor] check amounts at $500 per judge, there’s no real applicability for the real world,” said Chuck Lichtman, a Berger Singerman partner and the Florida Democratic Party’s lead counsel in the 2008 election.

I think the $500 cap misses the point of the ruling, to some degree. In West Virginia there was a statutory cap of $1000, so in that sense our states are similar.

But what Don Blankenship did, as the article notes, is bypass the statutory contribution cap by forming his own 527 which poured $2.5 million in direct advertising to criticize the opponent of the candidate he was supporting.

What would prevent the same thing from happening in Florida?

Chuck also thinks it would be too random in terms of influencing our judges:

Lichtman said donors are unable to predict which judge could hear a case based on random case assignments.

“In Florida, there’s a terrific set of rules in place that provides for protection,” Lichtman said. “I don’t see it being a big deal in Florida.”

That's true, but remember Blankenship was also taking a shot in that there are five members of the West Virginia Supreme Court, so it was not a certainty that Blankenship's choice would make the three-judge panel selected for his case.

Still, given that our appellate courts are appointed rather than elected, I do think the possibilities of such massive infusion of cash from a single source to influence a judicial election are unlikely.

We'll continue to do it the old-fashioned way -- hiring power brokers and bundlers to help amass large campaign chests.

That system works great, right?

Wow, are you all following the case of the West Virginia Supreme Court judge who was elected with $3 million in campaign contributions from a coal mining executive who had a case pending before their Supreme Court? And the judge he helped elect promptly delivered the deciding vote that overturned a $50 million jury verdict against the coal company?

USA Today covered the story on its front page yesterday. And the Supremes decided to take the case for this term (even though they too have struggled with recusal/conflict issues).

But what was interesting to me was the results of this poll cited in the article:

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll this month found 89% of those surveyed believe the influence of campaign contributions on judges' rulings is a problem, and 52% deem it a "major" problem. More than 90% of the 1,027 adults surveyed said judges should be removed from a case if it involves an individual or group that contributed to the judge's election campaign.

HAHAHAHA. Oh that's rich.

Given those numbers, do you think there is a disconnect between how the public views such contributions, and how judges and lawyers perceive them? Do lawyers and judges even recognize that the public views this issue the way the poll indicates?

Who the hail knows?

Anyways, I look forward to seeing you all at the fundraiser on Thursday.