Letters

Letters 08-31-2015

Inalienable Rights This is a response to the “No More State Theatre” in your August 24th edition. I think I will not be the only response to this pathetic and narrow-minded letter that seems rather out of place in the northern Michigan that I know. To think we will not be getting your 25 cents for the movie you refused to see, but more importantly we will be without your “two cents” on your thoughts of a marriage at the State Theatre...

Enthusiastically Democratic Since I was one of the approximately 160 people present at when Senator Debbie Stabenow spoke on August 14 in Charlevoix, I was surprised to read in a letter to Northern Express that there was a “rather muted” response to Debbie’s announcement that she has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president...

Not Hurting I surely think the State Theatre will survive not having the homophobic presence of Colleen Smith and her family attend any matinees. I think “Ms.” Smith might also want to make sure that any medical personnel, bank staff, grocery store staff, waiters and/or waitress, etc. are not homosexual before accepting any service or product from them...

Stay Home I did not know whether to laugh or cry when I read the letter of the extremely homophobic, “disgusted” writer. She now refuses to patronize the State Theatre because she evidently feels that its confines have been poisoned by the gay wedding ceremony held there...

Keep Away In response to Colleen Smith of Cadillac who refused to bring her family to the State Theatre because there was a gay wedding there: Keep your 25 cents and your family out of Traverse City...

Celebrating Moore And A Theatre I was 10 years old when I had the privilege to see my first film at the State Theatre. I will never forget that experience. The screen was almost the size of my bedroom I shared with my older sister. The bursting sounds made me believe I was part of the film...

Outdated Thinking This letter is in response to Colleen Smith. She made public her choice to no longer go to the State Theater due to the fact that “some homosexuals” got married there. I’m not outraged by her choice; we don’t need any more hateful, self-righteous bigots in our town. She can keep her 25 cents...

Mackinac Pipeline Must Be Shut Down Crude oil flowing through Enbridge’s 60-yearold pipeline beneath the Mackinac Straits and the largest collection of fresh water on the planet should be a serious concern for every resident of the USA and Canada. Enbridge has a very “accident” prone track record...

Your Rights To Colleen, who wrote about the State Theatre: Let me thank you for sharing your views; I think most of us are well in support of the first amendment, because as you know- it gives everyone the opportunity to express their opinions. I also wanted to thank Northern Express for not shutting down these types of letters right at the source but rather giving the community a platform for education...

No Role Model [Fascinating Person from last week’s issue] Jada quoted: “I want to be a role model for girls who are interested in being in the outdoors.” I enjoy being in the outdoors, but I don’t want to kill animals for trophy...

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