As the Caperton decision continues to make waves around the country, an article in the Bucks County Courier Times highlights its impact in our region. The context is the current judicial election contest in Bucks County. (PMC and PMCAction do not endorse or support any judicial candidates, but we report about campaign activities or candidate statements that are relevant to our work).
Dave Zellis, one of four candidates in the race for the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, is rejecting campaign contributions from lawyers. His opponents have declined to match this move, and Zellis has faced criticism for having contributed to judicial campaigns himself in the past, but Zellis feels vindicated by the Caperton decision. Responding to criticism from his opponents’ supporters that the Supreme Court wasn’t sufficiently precise in defining “substantial donations,” Zellis countered:
How do you define a substantial donation. . . . To the average resident trying to make a living in this economy, $100 is substantial. This perception that judges expect something in return from the lawyers standing before them in court-even if that’s not true-gives the justice system a bad name. It has to stop.
That perception of impropriety lies at the heart of the Caperton decision and underscores a fundamental problem of judicial elections-whether the donation is $3 million or $30, it creates the perception that a judge, who is supposed to be impartial, may feel beholden to a campaign donor. As PMC Executive Director Lynn Marks explained:
When you’re in court sitting with your attorney and looking across at your opponent or opponent’s attorney who made a contribution -it doesn’t matter how much they gave; it matters that they did.
It’s true the Caperton decision doesn’t specify the dollar amount at which an appearance of impropriety begins-it doesn’t need to. One dollar having passed from any party before the court to the judge behind the bench is one dollar too much. It’s time to get judges out of the fundraising business.
