The Raleigh County mine disaster caused national news media to focus on various Massey messes, including an infamous court case. Several network commentators and newspaper analyses cited the uproar that arose because Massey Energy's CEO spent $3 million to elect state Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin - then Benjamin voted twice to free Massey from an $80 million judgment.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The Raleigh County mine disaster caused national news media to focus on various Massey messes, including an infamous court case. Several network commentators and newspaper analyses cited the uproar that arose because Massey Energy's CEO spent $3 million to elect state Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin - then Benjamin voted twice to free Massey from an $80 million judgment.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the coal mogul's "pivotal role in getting Justice Benjamin elected created a constitutionally intolerable probability of actual bias." But, after Benjamin was removed, substitute West Virginia justices still favored Massey.
Fallout from this fracas continues. Here's a different example:
In January, Republican appointees on the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations may spend unlimited sums to elect their favored politicians. However, Justice John Paul Stevens filed a bitter dissent saying the decision "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."
Stevens cited the West Virginia example as what to expect when rich firms can bankroll politicians without limit. He wrote that the Mountain State case raised "an intolerable specter of quid pro quo corruption."
Clearly, Gov. Joe Manchin had the messy Massey miasma in mind when he proposed public funding of state Supreme Court races "to reduce the potential for appearance of bias as a result of campaign donations."
Manchin's bill - which aims to free candidates from the need to seek private money in campaigns for two high court seats in 2012 - passed the Legislature and was signed into law. However, critics say it won't halt special interests from spending heavily to sway outcomes. And a committee that favors wide-open spending threatens to sue. The attempt to cleanse state Supreme Court campaigns remains shrouded in uncertainty.
We hope reformers succeed in eliminating special-interest cash and "quid pro quo corruption" from West Virginia court campaigns. However, the U.S. Supreme Court's green light for limitless corporate political money seems likely to worsen, not improve, the situation.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The Raleigh County mine disaster caused national news media to focus on various Massey messes, including an infamous court case. Several network commentators and newspaper analyses cited the uproar that arose because Massey Energy's CEO spent $3 million to elect state Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin - then Benjamin voted twice to free Massey from an $80 million judgment.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the coal mogul's "pivotal role in getting Justice Benjamin elected created a constitutionally intolerable probability of actual bias." But, after Benjamin was removed, substitute West Virginia justices still favored Massey.
Fallout from this fracas continues. Here's a different example:
In January, Republican appointees on the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations may spend unlimited sums to elect their favored politicians. However, Justice John Paul Stevens filed a bitter dissent saying the decision "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."
Stevens cited the West Virginia example as what to expect when rich firms can bankroll politicians without limit. He wrote that the Mountain State case raised "an intolerable specter of quid pro quo corruption."
Clearly, Gov. Joe Manchin had the messy Massey miasma in mind when he proposed public funding of state Supreme Court races "to reduce the potential for appearance of bias as a result of campaign donations."
Manchin's bill - which aims to free candidates from the need to seek private money in campaigns for two high court seats in 2012 - passed the Legislature and was signed into law. However, critics say it won't halt special interests from spending heavily to sway outcomes. And a committee that favors wide-open spending threatens to sue. The attempt to cleanse state Supreme Court campaigns remains shrouded in uncertainty.
We hope reformers succeed in eliminating special-interest cash and "quid pro quo corruption" from West Virginia court campaigns. However, the U.S. Supreme Court's green light for limitless corporate political money seems likely to worsen, not improve, the situation.
