Rauner: Judicial system “broken”
Thursday, Jan 22, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From the twitters…
* And while I’m not sure we can draw a direct line between PM and Justice Karmeier, this can help show how money from trial lawyers isn’t the only problem…
As the U.S. Supreme Court hears another case testing the boundary lines for campaign contributions in judicial elections, new information has surfaced about the role money played in a hotly contested race last year for Illinois’ highest court.
The parent company of Philip Morris USA contributed a total of $500,000 on Oct. 6 and 8 to a Republican Party group, a few weeks after the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to hear the tobacco company’s appeal of a $10.1 billion verdict. About two weeks later, the Republican State Leadership Committee put $950,000 into independent campaign ads supporting the retention of Lloyd Karmeier, a Republican Illinois Supreme Court justice.
Previously, the only known contributions from the parent company, Altria Group, to the RSLC were made in 2013, totaling about $225,000.
Brian Mays, a spokesman for Richmond, Va.-based Altria, denied any impropriety.
“Neither Altria nor any of its companies contributed to Lloyd Karmeier’s 2004 election nor in 2014,” he said. “We did contribute $500,000 to the Republican State Leadership Committee. What’s important about that contribution is that we informed the RSLC both orally and in writing that our contributions could not be used in judicial elections.”
The other side spent $2 million against Karmeier, almost all from trial lawyers, many of whom are involved with big money cases pending before the court.
…Adding… From comments…
If Rauner agrees with you, then spending money is your first amendment right and people who try to regulate you are unpatriotic.
If Rauner disagrees with you, the system is broken because you might have influence.
- Reality Check - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:24 pm:
Public financing of judicial campaigns is needed.
- LincolnLounger - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:30 pm:
Too bad PM wasn’t as shameless and obvious about trying to buy justice like those firms in the Metro East judicial hellhole.
- chi - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:34 pm:
If Rauner agrees with you, then spending money is your first amendment right and people who try to regulate you are unpatriotic.
If Rauner disagrees with you, the system is broken because you might have influence.
- Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:40 pm:
He is consistent if nothing else.
Helping elect someone to office, and then negotiating with them or appearing before them, raises troubling questions about anyone’s ability to remain completely independent and objective.
At least it does if you want their help again come re-election time.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:40 pm:
Good point, chi.
- Obama's Puppy - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:43 pm:
Only billionaires an businesses should be allowed to give money to candidates. Everyone else is corrupt… wait don’t I have that backward.
- OneMan - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:44 pm:
===
If Rauner agrees with you, then spending money is your first amendment right and people who try to regulate you are unpatriotic.
If Rauner disagrees with you, the system is broken because you might have influence.
===
Close but more accurate
Money you agree with good..
Money you disagree with bad…
- Matt Belcher - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:44 pm:
I am with LincolnLounger; when one really wants to convey a meritorious point to well-informed, experienced politicos nothing is more effective than spit-taking focus-grouped, talking point clichés.
- Streator Curmudgeon - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:47 pm:
When I (Rauner) start a slush fund to buy off legislators who vote my way, it’s innovation. When anybody else tries to buy off an elected official, it’s corruption.
The rhetoric can’t camouflage the hypocrisy.
- Under Further Review - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:01 pm:
The creation of the retention ballot has been the greatest instrument for re-electing judges year after year. I think that it has been over two decades since the last time a judge was not retained in Cook County (he was accused of accepting bribes to fix a case).
- D.P.Gumby - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:06 pm:
typical chamber of commerce dreck
- Norseman - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:08 pm:
It may not be perfect, but I don’t trust Rauner to fix it. I’m confident his fix would benefit him and not me and the middle class.
- From the 'Dale to HP - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:16 pm:
chi nailed it.
- Realreporter - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:30 pm:
If Rauner is so accustomed on buying whatever he wants why not buy the entire judicial system and then change it? Who does this guy think he is? M Mark my words gunslinger, before it’s all over Speaker Madigan will hoist Emperor Rauner on his own petard.
- Team Sleep - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:37 pm:
Sorry, but this feigned outrage over “publicly financing judicial campaigns” was never at the forefront until Justice Karmeier won his seat on the Supreme Court. The trial lawyers have been pumping money into races for decades, and then a Republican wins a formerly safe Democratic-held seat on the state’s top court and all of a sudden people are incensed. Simmons, Lakin and their cohorts are still actively involved in southern Illinois judicial politics, and no one gives more to judicial candidates in the Metro East and southern Illinois than Simmons and his partners.
- walker - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:49 pm:
This is one a sitting Governor should probably stay away from.
- A guy - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:53 pm:
Amen, Walk.
Would anyone argue that it’s hummin’ along really well?
- Amalia - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:56 pm:
candidates were on the ballot. it’s an opportunity to have your say. and many of them are good at their jobs. just because we don’t like the system of choosing judges…I would prefer some form of merit selection….does not mean we should not make the choice. if more people read the judicial evals, and followed what the bar associations say, we could have voted NO on retention for some judges. try to change the system, but until it changes, those who sit on the sidelines and don’t vote, are, as the saying says, part of the problem. Mirror. Rauner.
- econ prof - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 3:11 pm:
Madison County has been ruined by the powerful asbestos lawyers. St. Clair County isn’t far behind. They bankroll the judges’ campaigns and set up quite a nice little playground for themselves.
- Madison - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 3:18 pm:
The solution to the Judicial Hellholes is have judges appointed by the Governor and supervised and\or fired by the Supreme Court justice from that region. Anybody loving law or sausage has no business watching a great kitchen mind such as Anne Callis doing either.
- Langhorne - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 3:41 pm:
Supreme Court districts were supposed to have been redrawn decades ago, but have not been. Who does that help? Why has it not been done? The population dispersion has changed considerably in the last decades. This deserves scrutiny.
- out of touch - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 3:44 pm:
Money flowing into the judicial system makes it “broken” (although no one heard that rhetoric from Rauner when Kilbride was attacked). $26 million into your own political campaign is just fine, as is another $20 million “carrot and stick” fund intended for legislators. Kettle, meet pot.
- Precinct Captain - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 4:29 pm:
The judicial system is broken because judges act like an extension of prosecutors, not like the check and balance arbiters that they are supposed to be.
- 1776 - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 4:49 pm:
Bob Clifford may win the title of the biggest hypocrite in Illinois in 2015 and we’re only three weeks into the year.
His quote that “there’s no question there’s been a deliberate attempt to influence the composition of the Illinois Supreme Court. When you elect a guy you expect to vote a certain way, that has implications.”
So, he’s alleging that the company’s money is being used to buy influence but that the $4 million spent by trial lawyers in the 2003 Karmeier election is not? Or the $250,000 that he gave in the retention race?
Give me a break Bob. You and the trial lawyers have been trying to buy “influence” on the court under his own definition.
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 9:18 pm:
It’s not influence, just access …
- Madison - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 9:59 pm:
And don’t call that a bribe either; its a contribution.
There’s a difference you know.
Just because you can’t see the difference…it’s there.
Besides, I took an oath to disregard all that anyway…