Letters

Letters 10-27-2014

Paging Doctor Dan: The doctor’s promise to repeal Obamacare reminds me of the frantic restaurant owner hurrying to install an exhaust fan after the kitchen burns down. He voted 51 times to replace the ACA law; a colossal waste of money and time. It’s here to stay and he has nothing to replace it.

Evolution Is Real Science: Breathtaking inanity. That was the term used by Judge John Jones III in his elegant evisceration of creationist arguments attempting to equate it to evolutionary theory in his landmark Kitzmiller vs. Dover Board of Education decision in 2005.

U.S. No Global Police: Steven Tuttle in the October 13 issue is correct: our military, under the leadership of the President (not the Congress) is charged with protecting the country, its citizens, and its borders. It is not charged with  performing military missions in other places in the world just because they have something we want (oil), or we don’t like their form of government, or we want to force them to live by the UN or our rules.

Graffiti: Art Or Vandalism?: I walk the [Grand Traverse] Commons frequently and sometimes I include the loop up to the cistern just to go and see how the art on the cistern has evolved. Granted there is the occasional gross image or word but generally there is a flurry of color.

NMEAC Snubbed: Northern Michigan Environmental Action Council (NMEAC) is the Grand Traverse region’s oldest grassroots environmental advocacy organization. Preserving the environment through citizen action and education is our mission.

Vote, Everyone: Election Day on November 4 is fast approaching, and now is the time to make a commitment to vote. You may be getting sick of the political ads on TV, but instead, be grateful that you live in a free country with open elections. Take the time to learn about the candidates by contacting your county parties and doing research.

Do Fluoride Research: Hydrofluorosilicic acid, H2SiF6, is a byproduct from the production of fertilizer. This liquid, not environmentally safe, is scrubbed from the chimney of the fertilizer plant, put into containers, and shipped. Now it is a ‘product’ added to the public drinking water.

Meet The Homeless: As someone who volunteers for a Traverse City organization that works with homeless people, I am appalled at what is happening at the meetings regarding the homeless shelter. The people fighting this shelter need to get to know some homeless families. They have the wrong idea about who the homeless are.

Home · Articles · News · Other Opinions · Equal Justice for all?
. . . .

Equal Justice for all?

Rich Robinson - June 7th, 2007
Michigan Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Weaver has criticized the state’s top court because there are no explicit standards that say when a justice should disqualify himself or herself from ruling in a case.
Her reward for raising this serious question has been a series of vicious personal attacks against her that distract attention from the serious problem she has raised. Don’t be distracted. There’s a real problem.
A new report from the Justice at Stake Campaign says that state judicial elections are nastier, noisier and more expensive than ever before. Candidates for state supreme courts across the country are building ever-larger campaign accounts. And special interests spend millions of dollars that are never disclosed in any campaign finance report.
This is not a new story. It’s routine for Michigan Supreme Court candidates and their supporters to spend more than $1 million per seat in marketing the candidates. In 2000, the tab was $16 million for three seats, and more than half that spending was totally off the books.
Why does this matter? If courts aren’t fair and impartial, we don’t have equal justice for all. Judges should be free of significant financial relationships with any litigant who appears before them. The American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct says that there shouldn’t be even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
This isn’t a hypothetical discussion. In 2000, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $10 million on Supreme Court campaigns in five states: Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Alabama and Mississippi. Several corporations, including Wal-Mart, Home Depot and DaimlerChrysler, each gave the U.S. Chamber $1 million for the effort.
The U.S. Chamber, in turn, supported the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and its $3 million television advertising campaign that depicted three candidates as unsuitable for the Court. Notably, however, those ads didn’t make any explicit statement about voting. That is critical because Michigan’s weak campaign finance law doesn’t consider ads that don’t mention voting to be campaign expenditures. These ads masquerade as issue ads and don’t have to be reported. Contributors are not disclosed and the normal prohibitions against using corporate money in a political campaign do not apply.
Subsequent to the 2000 elections, the Michigan Supreme Court, including the three justices whose campaigns were aided by the Michigan Chamber’s undisclosed television campaign, reversed two different damage judgments against DaimlerChrysler that together were worth more than $50 million.
I am not arguing the jurisprudential merits of these cases. But I do know that DaimlerChrysler contributed $1 million to the U.S. Chamber, which sent $1 million to the Michigan Chamber, which ran a multi-million dollar ad campaign that defined the “good guys” and the “bad guys” in the Supreme Court election. The justices backed by the Chamber then ruled on two DaimlerChrylser cases that got the corporation off the hook for $50 million in damages. Do you see the potential conflict of interest in this?
Since 2000, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce has spent $6 million on unreported ads touting the merits of five of our Supreme Court justices, four of whom routinely vote as a block. The Chamber, each election, has spent more than the candidates, a fact that can be verified by data in the state television broadcasters’ public files. The Chamber’s ads had the required disclaimer that says they paid for the ads. But that disclaimer is a label on a black box that conceals the true sources of those funds. Inside that black-box are $6 million worth of potential conflicts of interest, and we have no way to evaluate how many times the justices should have stood aside because somebody in a case before them was financially critical to their election.
What to do? We should require full disclosure of all campaign advertisements that focus on candidates, whether they mention voting or not. That would break open the black boxes that conceal the identities of financial backers and potential conflicts of interest.
More importantly, we should provide public financing for Michigan Supreme Court campaigns. Voters deserve the opportunity to vote for candidates who are demonstrably free of financial entanglements with special interests. Trust and confidence in our highest court is at stake.
And finally, the court should publish standards for self-disqualification that make sense to anyone who reads them.

Rich Robinson is the executive director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 

 

 
 
 
Close
Close
Close