Dorothy Samuels, a member of The New York Times Editorial Board, has some trenchant observations about who contributes to to judicial campaigns. In the Tuesday, April 15 edition of The New York Times, she writes,

"The perception that money is corrupting the courts would be damaging enough. But often, it seems, special interests are finding that buying up judges likely to side with them in big-dollar cases is a good investment. . ."

Later in the editorial she outlines the West Virginia State Supreme Court's (mis)handling of a case involving Massey Energy:

"In West Virginia, meanwhile, the State Supreme Court’s handling of a case involving a large coal company, Massey Energy, took on a decidedly farcical flavor. For the second time, the appellate court threw out a $50 million verdict against Massey.

The court decided to rehear the case after photographs publicly surfaced of its chief justice, Elliott Maynard, vacationing in Monte Carlo with Massey’s chief executive, Don Blankenship, in 2006, while the matter was pending in the Supreme Court. The chief justice disqualified himself from the rehearing. So did another justice, Larry Starcher, because he had publicly criticized Blankenship and his company. The 3-to-2 outcome in favor of Massey was unchanged from the first round, which might not have been noteworthy except that the deciding vote was cast once again by Justice Brent Benjamin, who declined to recuse himself despite owing his election to the court to more than $3 million spent by Mr. Blankenship."

Samuels offers a solution from a report by the Brennan Center for justice: stronger recusal rules.

See the complete editorial at
(link...)