Supreme Court takes charge against judicial campaign contributions. Is it enough?
It would appear that the Supreme Court is finally taking a stand against financial influences in the courtroom.
Since the inception of the South Florida Law Blog, I have been sharing and uncovering situations that violated the fair administration of justice, including the Illinois Bankers Association’s request for special treatment of Fannie and Freddie notes, the closure of foreclosure proceedings to the public right here in Florida, and big money’s attempts to interfere with the judiciary. By condemning and publicizing these misappropriations of power, Oppenheim Law has made it its mission to maintain the fairness and impartiality of the judicial system from within.
It comes as no surprise that the Supreme Court would finally decide to step up and take a stand against monetary influence over the judicial system, especially with the recent decline of trust in the judicial branch of government. On April 29, Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar was decided by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, in favor of prohibiting candidates for state trial benches from soliciting campaign contributions. While this may seem like it will be a tremendous benefit to the impartiality of the judicial system, there is a lot more to this issue than meets the eye. As the Daily Business Review reported, candidates can still find out who donated since the campaign committees are still allowed to solicit money. This raises the possibility of donors getting favorable outcomes. If the potential judges can still find out who contributed to their campaign, then this decision is nothing more than a mere illusion to fool the public into believing money doesn’t play a role in the judicial system.
Taking into consideration the previous attempts to influence the judiciary, and the rampant distrust in the judicial system by the American people, it really begs the question…is this decision really a little too late?