Tuesday, February 15, 2000

By T.C. BROWN

PLAIN DEALER BUREAU

COLUMBUS - The Ohio Supreme Court ruled favorably two-thirds of the time for clients of the 20 Cleveland-area attorneys who gave the most to justices’ political campaigns from 1993 through 1998.

During that period, those lawyers gave justices more than $112,300 in campaign donations. The court made 74 rulings on issues in 56 cases involving those attorneys. Fifty of those rulings - 68 percent - favored the contributing attorneys’ clients, according to court records.

While the court firmly denies any connection between its decisions and campaign contributions, such figures feed the debate about the potential of money to influence justice. From 1993 through 1998, Ohio Supreme Court justices collected more than $4 million for their political campaigns.

"Obviously, people give money to gain friends on the court," said Peter Joy, a former Case Western Reserve University law professor who now teaches at Washington University School of Law.

"Contributors in many instances admit as much. They think a judge will be more friendly to their issues."

Justices reject any correlation between political donations and court rulings.

"I do not believe that, and I’ve never felt the other justices made decisions based on contributions," said Republican Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton. "Why throw a case for $4,000? I find that insulting, but it is the attack everyone will make with this [election] system."

Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer noted that the winning lawyer might not be the only political donor involved in the dispute. "It’s not uncommon for me to vote on a case in which both lawyers have contributed," he said.

Recently, several groups have harshly criticized the justices in separate reports. But the potential for political influence in the justice system has been a longstanding concern.

The Citizens Committee on Judicial Elections reported in 1995 that nine out of 10 Ohioans believed campaign contributions influenced judicial decisions.

And the unease extends beyond Ohio.

In Texas, which has fewer restrictions on judicial elections than Ohio, almost half of the judges surveyed last year said they believed campaign contributions significantly influence courtroom decisions. The study was conducted for the Texas Supreme Court and Texas State Bar Association.

The American Bar Association last year toughened its Model Code of Judicial Conduct regarding judges who hear cases in which campaign donors are involved.

The new ABA language says a judge should step aside if his or her "impartiality might reasonably be questioned" due to campaign donations. The language, which has not been adopted in Ohio, does not specify a monetary amount.

"We developed the model, but it is left up to each individual state to adopt," said George Kuhlman, ethics counsel for the ABA. Only a few states have adopted the model, he said.

Ohio’s justices understand the public’s negative perceptions, but they believe little can be done without some drastic change to the system.

"As long as we elect judges, we are going to have stories like these," said Moyer, a Republican. He and others support the merit selection of appellate judges, a proposal turned down twice by voters, most recently in 1987.

Many of the justices agreed that some reform is needed, such as public funding of judicial elections or merit selection. One way to eliminate the appearance of conflict would be to limit elected justices to a single 15-year term, said Justice Alice Robie Resnick, one of the court’s two Democrats.

Ohio does have limits. The chief justice can spend no more than $700,000 in general elections; associate justices are restricted to $500,000. Individuals are permitted to contribute no more than $2,000 in the general election.

Nonetheless, more than half - $2.1 million - of the $4.1 million Ohio justices received in campaign contributions from 1993 through 1998 came from lawyers and lobbyists, according to Ohio Citizen Action.

Michael Becker, a lawyer with Becker & Mishkind in Cleveland, gave $10,000 to justices, the most of all Cleveland-area lawyers, according to Citizen Action.

"I think we support people we know and we know what their principles are," Becker said. "To suggest that the dollars cause them to change their opinions to that of the contributor is putting the cart before the horse."

With donations of $8,500, attorney Fred Weisman, of Wiesman Goldberg & Weisman, was the second biggest donor from the Cleveland region. He called it common sense.

"You don’t make contributions to those who appear to be your enemy," Weisman said. "I do not make contributions to any elected official whose philosophy is an extreme departure from my own."

A separate public report found that on average, justices issued decisions consistent with the outcome desired by donating law firms 70 percent of the time last year. The study was compiled by the Northeast Ohio Office of the Quakers’ American Friends Service Committee and Ohio Religious Leaders for Campaign Finance Reform.

"[Justice] appears to have been bought and sold, and it continues to be bought and sold in the highest court of the state, despite self-serving and hypocritical protestations to the contrary," the report said.

The Quaker study, criticized as flawed by some justices - in part because it didn’t consider whether lawyers for the losing side had also contributed - examined contributions from 1994 through 1998.

Meanwhile, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce blasted the court last week for a series of 197 "anti-business" rulings in the past decade, with many decided by a 4-3 split. The report said that six of the seven justices had lower pro-business scores than they had two years ago.

"They’re not interpreting the law, they are destroying the law," said Andrew E. Doehrel, the chamber’s president.

Justice Paul E. Pfeifer called such remarks irresponsible in an economy that is thriving.

"I used to think of the chamber as a good government type of body, but not when they engage in that kind of thing," said the Republican justice. "It is an attack on the institution. There is no anti-business animus on the part of anybody on the court."

E-mail: tcbrown@plaind.com

Phone: (216) 999-4213

©2000 THE PLAIN DEALER. Used with permission.