The American Bar Association weighed in this week in favor of public financing of judicial elections in states such as Pennsylvania whose voters choose judges. ' ... (T)he public sees the same patterns of financial contributions to judges and issue advertising related to judicial campaigns that have created cynicism about elections for our political leaders,' ABA President Martha Barnett said. Pardon us, but cynicism is exactly the right view of things governmental. Public financing of judicial elections, or any other government-ordered impairment of the First Amendment, certainly should not modify that view. Our cynicism derives from the fact that the degree of power seized by all branches of the government makes it seem profitable for private interests to spend so much on politics, which, we remind, they have every right to do. In Pennsylvania, the ABA says, 'in 1987, two candidates for (the) Supreme Court raised a total of $523,000; by 1995 the tab was up to $2.8 million.' James Wootton of the United States Chamber of Commerce speaks to The New York Times about the ABA's unstated rationale: 'This is a reaction of elements of the bar and elements of the judiciary who don't really like the public's commitment to popular election of judges.' A drive backed by Gov. Tom Ridge for amending the Pennsylvania Constitution to provide for 'merit' appointment of judges argues for a system that would produce a better class of jurists by circumventing the apathetic and ill-informed electorate. Judicial campaign finance reform, supporters contend, is like putting lipstick on a pig. But to which pig should we refer• The system of elections, which does attract a great deal of money and elects judges with less than optimum 'merit,' or the anti-republican corpulence of the government that renders these sums, by comparison, mere trifles.

---

Copyright ©2025— Trib Total Media, LLC (TribLIVE.com)

---