Comments made on a Supreme Court of Ohio candidate's Web site have damaged the court's credibility in a month when six candidates raised nearly $2 million as interested parties vote with their wallets on Ohio's new Supreme Court.

The Ohio State Bar Association recently criticized comments posted on Judge William O'Neill's campaign Web site. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge and Supreme Court of Ohio candidate, suggested that seats to the state's highest court are being sold in a manner similar to seats on the New York Stock Exchange.

"This statement crosses the line and falsely implies that justice has been and currently is for sale in Ohio," said David Crago, chairman of the state bar's Judicial Election Campaign Advertising Committee.

Bill Weisenberg, the bar's director of public affairs and governmental relations, said comments implying any person could own a seat on the Supreme Court of Ohio were out of bounds and untrue. Candidates must seek re-election every six years to retain a seat.

"No one owns a seat on the Supreme Court of Ohio. That was the basis of the committee's thinking," he said.

Charges of justice being for sale in Ohio began famously during the 2000 election when business groups charged that then-candidate Justice Alice Robie Resnick traded her votes for campaign contributions. Business groups had backed Resnick's challenger to the court.

In that election's aftermath, the bar formed the advertising watchdog committee to comment on campaigns in the 2002 election, which again featured outside interest groups running campaigns indicating that certain candidates were predisposed to vote a certain way on pertinent issues.

"When we did Election 2000, I thought this was an aberration, but it has continued," said Catherine Turcer, campaign finance director for Ohio Citizen Action. Turcer has studied judicial campaign contributions.

While the bar's committee studied O'Neill's claims that seats on the Supreme Court of Ohio were auctioned to the highest bidder - the Ohio Republican Party levied a complaint against the comments - the six candidates fighting for three seats raised $1.9 million in July.

"I can understand why the bar association is concerned about what O'Neill is saying, but he's not criticizing a specific judge," Turcer said.

O'Neill's remarks instead were directed at the system that encourages spending on advertisements, as judicial rules preclude judicial candidates from speaking on issues before the court on the campaign trail. Judges who have spoken to issues that later come before the court might have to recuse themselves from participating in proceedings.

According to campaign reports filed with the Ohio Secretary of State's office, judicial candidates raised $1.9 million in July. Of that total, O'Neill raised $13,000.

"I'm being criticized for saying justice is for sale," O'Neill said. At the same time, six candidates have raised $2 million in one month in order to campaign for judicial seats.

"I think those two statements go very well together and speak for themselves," he added.

In the 2002 Supreme Court of Ohio election, the two candidates with the most money defeated the two candidates who had combined to raise half as much money, according to Ohio Citizen Action reports.

Money in politics impacts races in all three branches, though, usually with the better-endowed candidate defeating a fiscally-challenged opponent, Weisenberg said.

"The two presidential candidates are not spending all this money in Ohio to get good seats to Ohio State Football games," he added.

Among the three Supreme Court of Ohio candidates endorsed by the state Republican Party in 2004, approximately half the fundraising comes from the insurance industry, and very little from trial attorneys, Turcer said. The reverse holds true for Democratic Part-endorsed candidates.

"You can understand where somebody looks at the system and says they are trying to pick the referees," she added.

Critical issues likely to come before the court in the coming years include civil justice reform, with the Ohio General Assembly already placing caps on lawsuit awards to patients injured by medial malpractice. Lawmakers currently are debating Senate Bill 80, a broader proposal that would place caps on damages awarded to consumers injured by negligent or harmful corporate practices.

"In '94 and '99 you have tort reform overturned (by Supreme Court decisions). Business made some changes in 2002, but they need to seal the deal. We have recent passage of tort reform, and we have Senate Bill 80. All that comes to naught if it's declared unconstitutional," Turcer said.

The insurance industry's interest in the Supreme Court extends beyond lawsuit damages, which often fall to insurance policies. The industry, joined by the business community, complained loudly when the Supreme Court of Ohio decided that corporate auto insurance policies extended to employees injured outside working hours in personal cars.

In 2003, a new court overturned that decision.

"It might be an indication that the court is more business friendly, but it might be that the court reassessed (the earlier decision) logically. You can see how they got there," Turcer said.

The result of a system that encourages fundraising and spending is a citizenry that largely believes money can impact the judicial system, Weisenberg said. He added that a large number of judges believe money corrupts the judiciary.

While the reality might be that judges can raise campaign funds and not be beholden to contributors, often perception is more important. Turcer compared the view donors have of the state judiciary to a vending machine.

"You put the money in, you push the button and you get what you want. It doesn't work that way (in the courts), but if you look at the dollars, it does appear that people think it works that way," she said.

The question remains, however, as to why, in industry-specific patterns, millions of dollars in contributions flow to candidates whose predisposition must be one of impartiality.

"It is difficult to reconcile a truly independent judiciary with large sums of money that flow into judicial campaigns," Weisenberg said.