Supreme Court Fair Elections bill would maintain the integrity of our highest court

Update: Senate Bill 5912, establishing a program of publicly financed supreme court campaigns, advanced farther than it has in any other legislative session when it passed out of the Senate Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday. Its next step is to be scheduled for debate on the Senate floor. Call or email your senator and ask them to support this bill.

To what should a judge’s first allegiance be? To the rule of law, or to the organization that helped him get elected by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on his behalf?

Would you like to oppose a group in court who funded the election campaign of your presiding judge? So much for equal protection under the law.

This year, three Washington State Supreme Court justices will be up for reelection. Will we see a repeat of 2006, when a record $4.2 million was spent campaigning for just three Washington Supreme Court seats? We can only hope not and unfortunately it’s too late to prevent it, but there’s still time do something about the 2012 race.

Public campaign finance advocacy group Washington Public Campaigns is fighting to pass a Supreme Court Fair Elections bill that will create a program of optional public financing of state Supreme Court campaigns.

Here’s how the bill works according to Washington Public Campaigns:

The Supreme Court Fair Elections bill will create a public financing program, optional for candidates seeking election to the supreme court only. Candidates would qualify for public funds by raising at least $41,055 in contributions of $10-$400, from at least 500 citizens. This qualifies them for a set sum for a primary race, and if they win, an additional sum for the general election - amounts sufficient to run a competitive, robust campaign.

If a candidate is outspent by a traditionally-funded opponent or faces opposition from independent PACs, they receive matching "rescue funds" - up to capped limits set in the bill.

The program would begin once $3 million (per biennium) has been generated by a small surcharge of $1 on court filing fees - paid by users of the court, not by taxpayers.

Seven states already have “clean elections” programs for some political offices. North Carolina has offered optional public financing to statewide judicial candidates since 2004, and the program has been not only increasingly popular, but successful as well. In 2006, eight out of twelve candidates ran a publicly financed election, including five out of the six winners.

Running for office on public, no-strings-attached money works. The top benefit for the candidate is that it allows her to focus on the issues and on voters, not on fundraising. For their part, voters like knowing that their interests won't be put behind those of well-heeled donors.

This fall, all of Washington’s state representatives and half of its senators will be running for reelection. One question we should ask these candidates is whether or not they support publicly financed elections. Clean elections bills in the legislature are not going away.

Creating a program for state Supreme Court elections is a good start, but public campaign financing would strengthen the integrity of all office holders. After achieving Supreme Court public financing, Washington Public Campaigns hopes to expand the program, and loosen money and lobbyist’s hold on even more of Washington’s elected officials.

Let’s make elections about issues and voters, not fundraising. Democracy and justice shouldn’t be for sale.