Candidates weigh in on campaign contributions

Listen to this article

In their first public debate after a ruling that lifted the limitations of judges to personally solicit campaign donations, both candidates for Supreme Court said they have no intention of calling on voters for contributions.

But Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson and Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Randy R. Koschnick differed on whether or not certain campaign contributions can influence the outcome of judicial decisions.

At a Feb. 24 forum sponsored by the Dane County Bar Association, Koschnick called for Abrahamson to return $11,500 in donations her campaign received from attorneys William M. Cannon, Sarah F. Kaas and Edward E. Robinson of Cannon & Dunphy S.C.

Cannon, who according to finance reports filed by Abrahamson has contributed $6,000, is expected to present oral argument to the high court on March 5 in the medical malpractice case, Gregory G. Phelps v. Physicians Insurance Company of Wisconsin Inc.

The Associated Press recently reported that attorneys with cases pending before the Supreme Court have contributed approximately $30,000 to Abrahamson’s re-election campaign.

“There is one word for taking a contribution from a lawyer who has a case pending before you,” Koschnick said. “It’s ‘wrong.’”

Rather than return the donations, Koschnick also suggested Abrahamson could recuse herself from the case and others which may come to the Supreme Court involving attorneys who have donated to her campaign.

Abrahamson said she has no intention of returning the money and noted that the high court has ruled that campaign contributions alone are not reason enough for a judge to step down from a pending case.

“No contributor should force me out by contributing to me and no contributor should think I am going to be influenced in any way by a legal and relatively small donation,” Abrahamson said.

Wisconsin Judicial Integrity Campaign Committee Chair Thomas J. Basting, Sr. attended the forum, and said he did not foresee any conflict with the contributions.

“It’s kind of a red herring to say you can’t accept a campaign contribution from a lawyer who might have a case in front of you or does have a case in front of you,” Basting said.

“Those issues get hashed out when the case is there and when the case is argued.”

But Basting did express concern about another aspect of the recent district court ruling, which permits judges to join or endorse political parties.

Judge Barbara B. Crabb ruled in Siefert v. Alexander that portions of Supreme Court Rule 60.06, which prohibit judges from identifying themselves as members of political parties, are unconstitutional and violate the First Amendment.

“My fear with what that decision may do throughout the state is to undermine the public’s confidence in the judiciary,” Basting said. “It could be a problem if judicial candidates will be treated just like other politicians and the public will lose confidence in the independence of the courts.”

Neither Abrahamson nor Koschnick said they plan to endorse or announce an affiliation with any political party.

“I think it could cause concern for people that come before a judge if there is an R or a D after the judge’s name on the bench,” Koschnick said. “As far as the free speech right to join the political party or announce that, I think that’s good.”

Koschnick has called himself a “judicial conservative” and labeled Abrahamson as a “judicial activist.”

Abrahamson said for the moment, the decision by Crabb is binding, but she does not intend to perpetuate public confusion about whether a judge’s personal views factor into case decisions.

Wisconsin Judicial Commission Executive Director James Alexander said no decision has been made as to whether the ruling will be appealed.

“The issue is what can a judge do and what should the judge do,” Abrahamson said. “As judges we are supposed to set aside personal views, not emphasize them.”

Abrahamson added that she supports public financing of judicial elections.