Efforts to Buy Justice Should be Thwarted

A company owned by a coal tycoon is sued for illegally destroying a rival business — and gets whacked by a jury. The verdict comes in at $50 million, plus punitive damages. When the case heads for appeal, the tycoon funnels more than $3 million into a political race for the state supreme court. The contributions are designed to unseat an incumbent justice — and are perfectly legal.

The challenger wins with 53.3 percent of the vote. The tycoon's company comes before the state supreme court, and on a 3-2 vote, the verdict is set aside.

The new justice refuses to step away from the case. He votes with the majority.

Real intrigue follows. The state supreme court votes to rehear the appeal. One of the justices who voted with the majority removes himself after photos surfaced showing him vacationing with the tycoon (on the French Riviera) while the case was pending.

One of the justices who voted to uphold the verdict, meanwhile, also recuses himself. He had criticized the tycoon for pouring millions of dollars into the judicial election — calling into question his impartiality.

But the new justice again refuses to step aside. Indeed, by now, he is acting chief justice, and it falls to him to appoint replacements for the two justices who removed themselves from the case.

The court again sets aside the jury verdict.

On Monday, the U.S.

Supreme Court supplied the Hollywood ending. The case of the coal tycoon and multimillion-dollar campaign contributions is, in fact, real. It's called Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. and arose in West Virginia. It actually inspired a John Grisham novel.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court held that the tycoon's big money violates due process — specifically, "when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing a judge on a case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent."

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the main dissent in the Caperton case. He said he "fears" the decision would lead litigants to argue in courts across the country that contributions in judicial elections have undermined judges' impartiality and ability to provide due process.

There's no need for Roberts to worry. Money already has poisoned judicial elections. Parties that make large contributions and judges who accept them should be called out for participating in transactions that create the appearance of justice for sale.

Indeed, reform will come only if citizens complain — loudly and vehemently.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.