Chris Young stories from The Center for Public Integrity

ADA forces judge to slash jury award for disabled workers

2013-05-21T13:30:44-04:00

An Iowa federal judge who frequently attends business-friendly judicial education conferences slashed a landmark $240 million verdict to $1.6 million for 32 mentally disabled workers who suffered abuse and discrimination at the hands of their employer.

It might appear that a pro-business judge made a predictably pro-business ruling. Turns out the judge had no choice. The 22-year-old Americans with Disabilities Act — designed to protect the rights of disabled workers — is to blame for the paltry award.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Wolle of the Southern District of Iowa ordered Henry’s Turkey Service to pay $50,000 in damages to each of the workers involved in a discrimination lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In total, the judge ruled, the company must pay the workers $1.6 million.

Wolle’s decision came two weeks after a federal jury awarded each of the workers a total of $7.5 million in damages — $240 million in all. Jurors found that Henry’s, a now-defunct Texas company, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by subjecting the disabled workers to years of unfair treatment and harassment.

The EEOC’s complaint, filed in 2011, accused Henry’s of taking advantage of the workers’ mental disabilities, paying them substandard wages — $60 to $65 per month despite working at least 35 hours per week — failing to attend to the workers’ illnesses and injuries, and subjecting them verbal and physical abuse.

(Updated May 21, 2013, 1:28 p.m.: This story has been updated to add details of the accusations by EEOC against the employer.)

According to the EEOC, the disabled workers were hit, kicked and even handcuffed by their supervisors. One former Henry’s supervisor admitted in federal court that he had slapped and kicked mentally disabled employees at the turkey processing plant. In addition to being physically abused, the EEOC wrote in its complaint, workers were also called derogatory names, denied bathroom breaks and forced to live in a squalid bunkhouse.

The company, jurors unanimously agreed, acted with “malice or with reckless indifference” to the workers’ federal civil rights. The jury awarded each of the 32 men $5.5 million to compensate them for their pain and suffering, and another $2 million in punitive damages.

In a May 1 press release, the EEOC trumpeted the “historic verdict,” claiming that the $240 million in total damages amounted to “the largest verdict in the federal agency’s history.”

Not so fast.

As it turns out, the Americans with Disabilities Act limits the amount of damages that can be awarded to plaintiffs. That’s why Judge Wolle so drastically reduced the award.

Under the act, compensatory and punitive damages are capped at $50,000 for companies like Henry’s that employ between 14 and 101 employees.

The limit is $300,000 for companies that employ more than 500 employees.

EEOC attorney Robert Canino acknowledged the caps in a brief he filed on May 10.

The EEOC “understands that the amount of damages of $7,500,000 assessed and awarded by the jury to each of the 32 class members, while certainly an appropriate and meaningful measure of the actual harms suffered by these victims of discrimination, including but not limited to, the mental anguish, pain and suffering, and ‘loss of enjoyment of life,’ must be drastically reduced in order to come within the stringent statutory limits for recovery under” the law, he wrote.

Robert Dinerstein, an American University law professor who specializes in disability law, says the caps on damages were implemented in an effort to balance plaintiffs’ needs to be compensated for their pain and suffering without unnecessarily putting companies out of business.

Still, he says, “I think the [caps] are problematic.”

For one thing, Dinerstein says, plaintiffs are already burdened with proving to a jury that the discrimination they’re alleging is real and intentional. “It’s not as if any Tom, Dick and Harry can go to a sympathetic jury and win,” he says.

Moreover, Dinerstein says $300,000 is “chump change” for a large company employing more than 500 workers.

When companies discriminate against their disabled employees, “They should pay the piper.”

Even though the damages were significantly cut, Dinerstein says, “You still have a symbolic victory.”

That symbolic victory is also supplemented by a previous judgment ordering Henry’s to pay the workers a total of about $1.3 million in back pay.

Judges often ignore trip disclosure rules

United States — 2013-03-28T08:29:34-04:00

Publicly filed reports of privately funded trips and seminars made by federal judges are often difficult to find, incomplete or missing altogether, according to a Center for Public Integrity investigation.

In 2007, the organization that oversees the conduct of federal judges implemented an ethics policy requiring public disclosure of details about privately funded judicial education conferences.

Noting that judges may be “influenced inappropriately” by those who conduct the events, a panel of the Judicial Conference of the United States said the new disclosure requirements “should strengthen public and congressional confidence in federal judicial ethics.”

The Center collected disclosure information from 2008 through 2012. Many federal court websites are poorly designed and hard to navigate, making it difficult to find links to judges’ seminar-disclosure reports.

In some cases, links to reports were either broken or nonexistent. A handful of courts, including the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware, linked to a different set of disclosures. In Delaware’s case, it was the U.S. District Court in Northern Texas.

The Center’s analysis also showed apparent lapses in reporting by hosts and judges.

For example, in August 2011, the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) hosted a five-day judicial conference at a ranch in Big Sky, Mont., entitled “Terrorism, Climate & Central Planning: Challenges to Liberty & the Rule of Law.”

FREE’s report indicated there was just one lecture: “Taking the Long View of Progress,” delivered by Judge Daniel Boggs of the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. But a conference agenda posted on FREE’s website shows there were in fact 11 lectures at the event.

Absent from FREE’s disclosure report were lectures delivered by two federal judges: Richard G. Stearns of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts and Douglas H. Ginsburg of the U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit.

John Baden, FREE’s chairman, told the Center he didn’t have the “foggiest idea” why his organization’s disclosure report appears incomplete in court records. “We make everything totally public,” he says, noting that complete conference agendas are always listed on FREE’s website.

Neither Stearns nor Ginsburg reported attending the conference on the required seminar disclosure forms. (Stearns, in fact, has never filed a seminar disclosure report.) However, both judges reported the conference on their more detailed, congressionally mandated annual financial disclosure reports.

Marsha Zierk, Stearns’ law clerk, told the Center that the judge was unaware of any seminar disclosure policy. Ginsburg did not respond to requests for comment.

Stearns and Ginsburg aren’t the only judges to report attending conferences on annual financial disclosure reports — which are enforced by fines and even jail time — yet fail to do so on seminar disclosure forms.

U.S. District Judge Helen G. Berrigan of Louisiana’s Eastern District reported attending the 2010 International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law seminar hosted by the Aspen Institute but did not file the separate, required conference attendance paperwork that the Center used as the basis of its analysis.

“It’s just a mishap,” says Berrigan, noting that her secretary must have forgotten to file the seminar disclosure.

In some cases, seminars were reported, but no judges reported attending them.

Twenty-two seminars between July 2008 and the end of 2012 went unattended by federal judges, according to filings.

It is possible that only state judges attended; or that federal judges did appear, but paid their own way. But the discrepancy could also mean they failed to file.

Occasionally, judges report the presence of other judges at seminars who have not filed disclosure reports.

For example, last October Judge Ron Clark of the Eastern District of Texas District Court and Chief Judge Robert Clive Jones of the U.S. District Court in Nevada reported attending a judicial conference on patent litigation hosted by The Sedona Conference, a nonprofit research and educational organization, in Del Mar, Calif.

On each of their disclosure reports, the judges noted the names of eight other federal judges who also attended the conference.

None of the eight judges, five of whom were listed as speakers at the seminar, reported attending the privately funded conference. Speakers are required to report their attendance if they are reimbursed by the conference host.

In May 2011, U.S. District Judge Thomas Shields of Iowa’s Southern District reported attending a Northwestern University judicial program with two other federal judges. But neither of them filed disclosure reports.

The policy on judicial seminars was created in response to congressional efforts to ban judges from attending the often lavish educational retreats paid for by corporations and other private sources that might someday end up facing one of the participating judges in court.

The policy lacks teeth — there is no enforcement mechanism. In addition, the reporting requirements are weak. For example, the amount sponsors provide to fund seminars and retreats does not have to be reported.

Both judges and sponsors are required to file reports. Sponsors file must detail the event’s programs, speakers and sources of funding. State and local bar associations and some judicial groups are exempt from the policy.

Judges, if reimbursed by a private source for more than $335 worth of expenses, must post online a report disclosing certain details about the conference and its sponsors within 30 days of the event.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that … there are instances where a judge goes somewhere and they don’t report it,” says Russell Wheeler, former deputy director of the Federal Judicial Center, an education and research agency for the federal courts. “How big a problem it is, I just don’t know.”

Wheeler says it’s not surprising that the disclosure policy lacks an enforcement mechanism. The Judicial Conference has very little authority.

“What are you going to do,” Wheeler asks, “dock their pay?”

Judicial seminar backed by ex-president of Bolivia

Bolivia — 2013-03-28T10:39:09-04:00

The list of corporate sponsors of expense-paid judicial education seminars hosted by George Mason University’s Law & Economics Center in years past includes the names of such blue-chip companies as AT&T Inc., the Coca-Cola Co., Exxon Mobil Corp., Pfizer, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

But one name sticks out for its relative obscurity: Petromina LLC. While it turns out the company is little-known, its top manager is anything but.

Documents show that Petromina LLC is headed by Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, the former president of Bolivia, who fled to the United States nearly a decade ago amid major protests and accusations of human rights violations in his own country.

For years, Bolivia’s current government has unsuccessfully sought to extradite Sánchez de Lozada, also known by the nickname “Goni.”

Why a company headed by the former president of Bolivia would be interested in sponsoring expense-paid conferences for federal judges is unclear. Sánchez de Lozada, through attorney Ana Reyes of the Washington, D.C., firm Williams & Connolly, declined a request for an interview.

Sara Magner, the company's general counsel, told the Center for Public Integrity only that Petromina LLC decided to donate to the George Mason University think tank "as part of its charitable giving" after being "approached by an employee of George Mason to make the contributions."

Petromina LLC, which Magner described as a "family advisory firm," is headquartered in a non-descript office building barely five blocks from the White House. Sánchez de Lozada is listed as “manager” and the “sole member” of the company, which was established in Delaware in 2005, according to records.

The company’s purpose is to provide “management and administrative services” and to offer “stewardship services to other foreign affiliates,” according to paperwork filed with the D.C. city government.

A website created by the graphic designer who produced Petromina LLC’s logo says the company is involved in the “management of petroleum and natural energy mining operations in South America.”

Records filed by George Mason University with the Administrative Office of the United States Courts show that Petromina LLC was among the sponsors of nearly three-dozen seminars for judges between November 2007 and October 2011.

But Henry Butler, the head of George Mason’s Law & Economic Center (LEC), which runs the seminars, says that his organization made a mistake.

“Petromina ceased supporting the LEC in 2007,” Butler wrote in an email to the Center for Public Integrity, adding that the company was “inadvertently listed” on disclosure forms “in subsequent years.”

Butler stated Petromina LLC gave the center $10,000 in 2006 “for a program for Latin American judges” and another $10,000 in 2007 “for general support.” The school listed Petromina LLC among the sponsors of a November 2007 seminar entitled “Science in the Courts,” records show.

Less of a mystery is the rise and fall of Sánchez de Lozada.

A mining magnate and free-market advocate, he was raised and educated in the United States, according to press reports. He served one term as president of Bolivia during the mid-1990s and was elected again in 2002.

During his second term, Sánchez de Lozada sought to export Bolivian natural gas to the United States and Mexico through a pipeline to Chilean ports before violent political protests forced him to resign and flee the country in October 2003. His address in court documents is in Chevy Chase, Md., a D.C. suburb.

As many as 67 people died after protesters — mostly poor, indigenous Bolivians — clashed with security forces. Hundreds more were injured, according to press accounts and a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of 10 Bolivian families.

In 2011, a handful of former military officials and ministers who had not left Bolivia were tried and sent to prison for charges related to the bloodshed. Bolivia sought to try Sánchez de Lozada during that trial as well, but could not do so while he remained abroad.

Sánchez de Lozada was sued in U.S. federal court in 2007 and accused of committing “crimes against humanity,” including employing “violence to quell widespread popular criticism of his policies.”

The case has been dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, but the plaintiffs’ attorneys are reviewing options for refiling at the district level. None of the judges involved appear to have gone on any free trips.

The former president told the Miami Herald in 2004 that he authorized using only the “appropriate” level of force to maintain law and order.

In federal court, his lawyers have also asserted that a U.S. State Department review “found no evidence that civilians were targeted and concluded that the Bolivian response, which included the unfortunate deaths of innocents, was commensurate with the threat.”

Beth Stephens, a human rights attorney who is part of the American legal team, said she is not surprised by Sánchez de Lozada's continued business affairs in exile.

“We know that he has political connections,” Stephens said.

John Dunbar contributed to this story.

Corporations, pro-business nonprofits foot bill for judicial seminars

2013-05-13T12:14:21-04:00

Conservative foundations, multinational oil companies and a prescription drug maker were the most frequent sponsors of more than 100 expense-paid educational seminars attended by federal judges over a 4 1/2-year period, according to a Center for Public Integrity investigation.

Among the seminar titles were “The Moral Foundations of Capitalism,” “Corporations and the Limits of Criminal Law” and “Terrorism, Climate & Central Planning: Challenges to Liberty & the Rule of Law.”

Leading the list of sponsors of the 109 seminars identified by the Center were the conservative Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, The Searle Freedom Trust, also a supporter of conservative causes, ExxonMobil Corp., Shell Oil Co., pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and State Farm Insurance Cos. Each were sponsors of 54 seminars.

Other top sponsors included the conservative Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (51), Dow Chemical Co. (47), AT&T Inc. (45) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (46), according to the Center’s analysis.

Sponsors pick up the cost of judges’ expenses, which often include air fare, hotel stays and meals. The seminars in the Center’s investigation took place from July 2008 through 2012.

The Center identified 185 federal district and appeals court judges who reported attending one or more of the seminars over the period, according to disclosure forms, or about 11 percent of the more than 1,700 federal judges in the United States.

Two schools — George Mason University, located in Virginia just outside Washington, D.C., and Northwestern University based in Evanston, Ill., — hosted more than two-thirds of the seminars.

Roughly three-fourths of the more than 800 sponsors listed in documents were individuals, including a number of judges who took trips, raising the possibility that they may have offset the cost of the sponsorships with their donations. Most of the remaining underwriters were companies and foundations.

Determining exactly how much was paid by which sponsor is difficult to determine — amounts are not required to be reported under the disclosure rules.

Judicial conferences are billed as educational retreats intended to improve judges’ understanding of the law and economics. Judges and seminar hosts say the conferences, which feature lectures and panel discussions, provide helpful information that refines their legal expertise.

But they’ve long drawn scrutiny for how they are funded and organized.

Since the 1990s, critics have complained that many of the privately funded conferences serve state and federal judges a steady dose of free-market, anti-regulation lectures that could influence judges’ rulings from the bench.

Those concerns quieted in 2007, when the Judicial Conference of the United States, a group of senior circuit judges who oversee the U.S. Courts, implemented a policy requiring judges and seminar hosts to disclose information about the conferences.

Well-traveled jurists

The most-traveled judges, according to reports filed online by the judges, were U.S. District Judge Charles R. Wolle of the Southern District of Iowa and Chief Judge Thomas B. Bennett of the Northern District of Alabama Bankruptcy Court. Each reported attending nine seminars.

Wolle is a “senior status” judge, meaning he is semi-retired. He did not respond to requests for comment.

The next-most-traveled judges were:

U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real of the Central District of California and Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit, covering the Western states, who each took eight trips;
E. Grady Jolly, a federal appeals court judge for the 5th Circuit which includes Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, and U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Michael B. Kaplan of the District of New Jersey, who each took six trips;
U.S. District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt of the Southern District of Texas, Chief Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Shields of the Southern District of Iowa and senior-status U.S. District Judge Frederic Block of the Eastern District of New York, each of whom took five trips.

O’Scannlain declined to comment for this story. In an email, Kaplan wrote that the “seminars offer a valuable opportunity for new judicial appointees to enhance their knowledge and skills in complex areas of the law,” including economics.

Wolle, Real and O'Scannlain are all listed as seminar sponsors, though records do not indicate how much they contributed.

The Center identified instances where judges who attended seminars underwritten by certain firms and trade groups later issued rulings in the funders’ favor.

EPA loses case

In April 2009, for example, Jolly traveled to Northwestern University to attend the “Criminalization of Corporate Conduct” seminar sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 13 other funders.

Last August, Jolly wrote the majority 2-1 opinion declaring that the Environmental Protection Agency broke the law when it rejected a Texas emissions cap generally supported by the fossil fuels industry.

Jolly, who did not respond to requests for comment, sided with two of the petitioners in the suit — the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber.

Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law professor who specializes in judicial ethics, is skeptical that rulings are directly influenced by corporate sponsors of seminars, but noted, “in a cynic’s view that would smack of corruption.”

“Even if it has no effect in terms of the decisions judges make, the perception of influence matters a great deal,” he says. “It looks as if [corporations] are buying influence, even if it’s not true.”

Another attendee of the 2009 “Criminalization of Corporate Conduct” seminar was U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier, the Eastern District of Louisiana jurist presiding over a high-profile BP civil trial, which is being held without a jury in New Orleans.

Barbier is in charge of considering whether BP owes billions of dollars in fines for gross negligence leading to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil platform explosion and spill. The disaster killed 11 people and contaminated a large swath of the Gulf Coast.

In 2011, Barbier dismissed a wrongful-death claim in a suit brought against ExxonMobil and Chevron USA by the widow of a worker who was exposed to radioactive materials found on the companies’ equipment.

Barbier’s ruling in favor of the oil companies came two years after he attended the corporate conduct seminar, funded in part by ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, according to documents. The judge did not respond to requests for comment.

Corporate U?

George Mason University’s Law & Economics Center hosted 45 seminars while Northwestern University’s Judicial Education Program hosted 29. A total of 136 federal judges reported attending conferences conducted by the schools during the 4 1/2-year period analyzed by the Center for Public Integrity.

The remaining top five conference hosts, including The Sedona Conference and the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE), collectively organized 28 conferences.

The Koch Foundation and The Searle Freedom Trust supported most of the conferences organized by George Mason and Northwestern. The energy industry was a sponsor in roughly three-fourths of the conferences hosted by Northwestern.

Billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, major supporters of conservative causes, and their foundations have given millions to George Mason University. As the Center recently reported, the George Mason University Foundation received $4.4 million in 2011 from the Charles Koch Foundation, making up 15 percent of its revenue that year.

The school is the top recipient of Koch foundation money since 1985. George Mason also houses several free market and libertarian research centers, including the Institute for Humane Studies, which received $3.7 million from the Koch foundations, and the Mercatus Center, whose board of directors includes Charles Koch.

Officials from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation did not return phone calls seeking comment for this report.

The Judicial Conference disclosure policy doesn’t require seminar hosts to reveal how much donors contribute to conferences. But corporate-giving reports and nonprofit tax records shed some light on the costs.

Oil industry support

In 2011, for example, ExxonMobil reported giving $20,000 to George Mason specifically for its judicial training program. The oil company gave an additional $30,000 to the university’s Law & Economics Center, which hosts the conferences. Between 2003 and 2007, the ExxonMobil Foundation gave the think tank $150,000.

ExxonMobil officials did not respond to requests for comment.

Another seminar funder, Donors Trust, gave George Mason’s Law & Economics Center nearly $450,000 in general support in 2010. As the Center reported, Donors Trust helps conservative foundations and individuals give money anonymously to nonprofits that may take controversial positions.

A representative of Donors Trust declined to comment for this story.

The Searle Freedom Trust, a foundation advocating “economic liberty” which regularly donates to conservative groups like the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, contributed a combined $400,000 to George Mason’s judicial education programs in 2010 and 2011.

The school conducted conferences on antitrust law as well as “Corporations and the Limits of Criminal Law,” both funded by AT&T, BB&T, BP America, Cigna, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, FedEx Corp. and others.

“The Moral Foundations of Capitalism” was funded by the same group, and was the most popular George Mason conference, drawing at least 10 federal judges.

BP spokesman Scott Dean says the company has no record of ever directly contributing to the seminars but he did say BP gave the law school and the Law & Economics Center more than $37,000 between 2001 and 2008.

Seminars at Northwestern are hosted by the school’s Searle Center on Law, Regulation, and Economic Growth. The think tank, according to its website, was founded in 2006 thanks to a “generous grant” from Daniel C. Searle, the late pharmaceutical industry executive.

In 2009, the foundation gave $200,000 to Northwestern’s Searle Center for its judicial education program.

Another Northwestern seminar funder, The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation — a major supporter of conservative organizations, including the Heritage Foundation — gave $210,000 to the Searle Center between 2008 and 2010.

Records show corporate sponsorship at Northwestern was highest from 2008 through 2010, when a man named Henry Butler — now in charge of George Mason University’s Law & Economics Center — ran the Searle Center.

Daniel Rodriguez, dean of Northwestern University’s School of Law, says corporate sponsorships at the school “ended the moment Butler left." Rodriguez, who became the dean of Northwestern's law school last year, says the school recently decided to terminate the programs. He says he's against corporate sponsorship of judicial seminars.

“These programs should be free from any real or perceived conflict of interest,” he says.

Some history

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, advocacy groups and media outlets raised concerns about judges attending privately funded conferences conducted in vacation destinations like Arizona, Montana and Florida.

Critics claimed that the undisclosed trips created conflicts of interest and cast doubt on the ability of judges to decide cases without bias.

Seminars hosted by the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) attracted the most attention.

FREE, a Montana-based think tank championing “free-market environmentalism,” drew criticism for its ideologically conservative seminars. In 2011, for example, FREE hosted “Terrorism, Climate & Central Planning: Challenges to Liberty & the Rule of Law.”

Critics complained that judges spent their free time golfing, fishing and horseback riding at the conference’s Montana resort location. They worried that judges were being wined, dined and entertained by FREE’s funders, which included Koch Industries and Texaco Inc. (now part of Chevron Corp.).

Media scrutiny prompted members of Congress in 2000 to introduce legislation that would prohibit judges from accepting “anything of value in connection with a seminar.” The bill, which died in committee, was opposed by the Judicial Conference, which claimed it restricted judges’ free speech rights.

Similar legislation failed again in 2003.

In 2007, the Judicial Conference implemented a policy designed to provide “greater transparency” by setting up disclosure requirements for both judges and seminar hosts.

“Instead of banning anything,” says Geyh, the policy “was a way to mollify those who recognized the perception problem without causing the ones who treat [the conferences] as a First Amendment issue to go ballistic.”

Buying influence?

Even with the new policy, the seminars still have critics.

“These seminars are taking place because large corporate interests are hoping to influence the outcome of cases involving themselves or likeminded entities,” says Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, a liberal organization that first raised concerns about judicial education conferences in a 1993 report titled “Justice for Sale.”

Russell Wheeler, former deputy director of the Federal Judicial Center, an education and research agency for the federal courts, says it’s possible that funders could be truly dedicated to improving judges’ understanding of the law.

But, he says, “You’ve got to be pretty naïve to believe that.”

“It’s the funders that create the problem,” says Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor who specializes in legal ethics. “The money comes from interests that have matters before the courts, and they’d like to have those matters settled in their favor.”

Many of the seminars are conservative in nature, especially those hosted by George Mason. But there are a few exceptions. A June 2010 conference sponsored by the Open Society Institute, a foundation founded by liberal investor George Soros, focused mainly on human rights law.

(The Center for Public Integrity has received funding from Soros’ Open Society Foundations.)

Events hosted by the Sedona Conference, a nonprofit whose seminars address legal issues like antitrust law and intellectual property, have been funded primarily by law firms.

Speaking from the right

According to The Center for Public Integrity’s analysis, the person who spoke at more judicial conferences than any other was Butler, a professor and prominent conservative formerly of Northwestern and now executive director of George Mason’s Law & Economics Center.

He has taught judicial seminar courses with titles like “Economic Thinking” and “Economics of Insurance.” A former Republican candidate for Congress — he lost a 1992 bid — Butler was a “Koch Distinguished Professor of Law and Economics” at the University of Kansas.

Butler’s resume cites his “professional affiliations” with the conservative Federalist Society and the Mont Pelerin Society, which decries society’s loss of freedoms “fostered by a decline of belief in private property and the competitive market.”

Butler declined to be interviewed for this story. In response to emailed questions about George Mason’s judicial seminars, he wrote, “You seem to have a well-established theme to your story, accordingly we don't see any advantage in collaborating with you.”

Daniel Polsby, dean of the George Mason University School of Law, also declined to answer questions for this story other than to say: “We're very proud of the activities and programs of the Law & Economics Center” via email.

Another frequent seminar instructor is Terry L. Anderson, president of the Property and Environment Research Center, a conservative think tank “dedicated to improving environmental quality through property rights and markets.”

Anderson, a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, has regularly led “Free Market Environmentalism” lectures at conferences hosted by both George Mason and Northwestern.

Green energy’s ‘false promise’

In January 2011, Anderson was one of four lecturers who spoke at George Mason’s “Advanced Institute on Environmental Economics” conference, which was funded in part by ExxonMobil, BP America and Shell Oil.

The other three speakers were Andrew Morriss, co-author of the book “The False Promise of Green Energy”; Robert K. Fleck, an economics professor who has received thousands of dollars in research grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation; and Jason Johnston, a former fellow with the Koch-funded, Anderson-led Property and Environment Research Center and a critic of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“I don’t express views” during lectures, says Anderson. He says his talks are based strictly on economic analysis. “None of my lectures are aimed at changing any judge’s opinion” about a case before them in court.

George Mason law professor Todd J. Zywicki, another regular judicial program speaker, has taught judges about issues like mortgage markets and consumer credit.

He is a senior scholar at the school’s conservative Mercatus Center, and has ties to the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is “dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty." Zywicki did not respond to a request for comment.

George Mason “is known to stage conferences that have a conservative economic perspective,” says Gillers, the NYU law professor.

One frequent attendee of George Mason’s judicial seminars, Judge Bennett of Alabama bankruptcy court, told the Center “I’m not going to be snowed by anybody’s presentation.” He said he finds the seminars “infinitely invaluable.”

“You can accumulate information much more quickly than if you sit in your office and read stuff,” he says.

Bennett dismisses criticism of George Mason’s judicial conferences — even though he acknowledges that they often feature conservative voices.

“I believe they put on a fairly balanced program,” he says, noting that he doesn’t pay attention to who funds the conferences. “I’ve been to George Mason seminars where they’ve had people who are not conservative. It’s all in the eye of the beholder.”

Stacked panels?

Northwestern’s 2009 seminar titled “Criminalization of Corporate Conduct” included a speaker panel that was very corporate-friendly — something George Mason’s Henry Butler openly acknowledged during his presentation summing up the day’s events.

Butler noted “a question can be raised” about the panels’ balance and “do we have enough people here that are representing the prosecutor’s perspective.” (His remarks are posted on YouTube.) “And I certainly can plead guilty to that accusation.”

“On the other hand,” he continued, “I have to explain to you that we’ve had difficulty in the past getting the U.S. attorneys to participate in these programs.”

The December 2010 “Climate Change Litigation” session hosted by George Mason’s Law & Economics Center was sponsored in part by BP America, ExxonMobil and Shell Oil and featured four speakers.

Two were attorneys who have represented corporate clients like Koch Industries and ExxonMobil. A third speaker, Johnston, the former Property and Environment Research Center fellow, spent part of his presentation criticizing the American civil courts system for making American companies less competitive on the international stage.

Butler, who moderated the panel, acknowledged the imbalance as he introduced a last-minute replacement for the fourth panelist.

"Eric Mayer is going to be pro-public nuisance, climate-change litigation cases, and the other three are basically going to express some skepticism," Butler said in his introduction, identifying Mayer, a lawyer who has represented plaintiffs as well as corporate defendants.

The announcement drew laughs from panelists and audience members.

"This may seem unbalanced,” Butler continued, “but Eric is not daunted by this challenge at all.”

Donor names disappear

The “transparency” policy regarding judicial trips may be weak, but the names of the corporations, foundations and individuals that pay for the conferences at least are available to the public.

Now, even that bit of sunshine is clouding over.

In 2012, George Mason’s Law & Economics Center began listing “xyz corp.,” as a sponsor before listing itself as the only donor on official disclosure documents. However, the think tank does provide a list of donors on its website.

The 2007 Judicial Conference policy allows such reporting if the support comes from general revenues or from endowments or gifts “not raised for the particular educational program or for the purpose of educating judges.”

Geyh, the Indiana University law professor, says the policy enables conference hosts to shield their donors and make it tough for judges to identify potential conflicts before attending seminars.

“It does raise transparency issues,” he says. “It strikes me as some semantic game-playing with the rules.”

John Dunbar contributed to this report.

Outside spending makes big difference in state-level races

2012-11-14T11:17:51-05:00

The explosion of outside spending unleashed at the federal level by the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling also rocked state races.

Contests for the top executive and judicial spots, in states whose bans on corporate outside spending were invalidated by the ruling, were newly shaped by unlimited cash from out-of-state corporate and union treasuries.

The D.C.-based governors’ associations led the way, nearly keeping pace with candidate spending in several close races. Governors’ races in Montana, Washington and New Hampshire were neck-and-neck as voters were besieged by ads financed by outside spending groups through Election Day.

Montana governor's race

Republican Rick Hill held a slim lead in his race against Democrat Steve Bullock for governor of Montana in a race that had not been determined at this writing. The Republican Governors Association used a super PAC, created in the wake of Citizens United, to support Hill.

RGA Right Direction PAC ran ads in Montana attacking Bullock, and also used its super PAC to funnel millions directly to candidates and parties on the state level.

The candidates both raised about $2 million according to Montana-based campaign finance watchdog the National Institute on Money in State Politics. But outside groups spent at least as much (and gave a rare half-million-dollar contribution directly to Hill in early October).

When a federal judge struck down Montana’s limits on giving directly to candidates in early October, the RGA sent $600,000 to the Montana Republican Party, which gave $500,000 to Hill the next day.

The previous limit on party giving to gubernatorial candidates was $22,600. Four days later, a federal appeals judge reinstated those limits, but not before Hill got the donation, which accounted for a quarter of his fundraising.

Meanwhile, Steve Bullock, who defended the state’s campaign finance laws as attorney general after a shadowy nonprofit sued the state over spending and contribution limits as well as disclosure requirements, benefited from outside spending by the D.C.-based Democratic Governors Association.

The DGA-funded JET PAC spent at least $1.7 million on ads, about the same amount that candidate Bullock raised. One of the ads featured current Gov. Brian Schweitzer endorsing Bullock for the job.

Nail-biter in Washington state

The RGA has made its mark on three states where it sought to take governors’ mansions inhabited by Democrats.

In Washington, Democrat Jay Inslee and Republican Rob McKenna were essentially tied late Tuesday — the governors associations played a large role right up until voting day. The race had yet to be called by this writing.

McKenna edged out Inslee in fundraising, but got an even larger boost from the RGA, which outspent its Democratic counterpart by $2 million, according to the Washington Secretary of State.

In the two weeks before the election, the RGA plastered the state with $1.3 million in ads calling Inslee a “D.C. congressman” who is “part of the problem.” The late ad spending was four times as much as a DGA-funded group, called Our Washington, could muster before Nov. 6.

In New Hampshire, Democrat Maggie Hassan crushed Republican Ovide Lamontagne on Tuesday, despite a major effort by the RGA-funded Live Free PAC. The RGA spent nearly $8 million on ads — a quarter of it since Oct. 18 — attacking her tax policies.

The DGA-funded New Hampshire Freedom Fund spent about $3 million on ads against Lamontagne, according to the state’s election division.

GOP wins big in North Carolina

The RGA’s major pickup on Election Day was in North Carolina. The state’s ban on corporate and union outside spending was nullified after the 2010 high court decision.

Republican Pat McCrory’s race with Democrat Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton was never close. Dalton suffered from attacks tying him to the unpopular tenure of current Gov. Bev Perdue, who chose not to run for re-election.

McCrory, the former mayor of Charlotte, trounced Dalton on the fundraising front, and also benefitted from a 2-to-1 edge from outside spending on his behalf — according to the North Carolina-based Institute for Southern Studies.

The RGA used corporate treasury money to kick off an early ad campaign against Dalton, tying him to Perdue’s unpopular record. Since May, it raised $5 million, compared to the DGA-funded group North Carolina Citizens for Progress’ $2.6 million.

In states with unlimited contribution limits to candidates, the governors associations made direct donations.

In Missouri, incumbent Democrat Jay Nixon held a solid fundraising advantage and a solid lead in the polls against Republican Dave Spence — which carried through to a 12-point Tuesday victory.

The RGA tried to keep Spence alive with $1.25 million in donations in October alone, and could have given more.

State supreme court results

Since Citizens United, last-minute outside spending has played a major role in state supreme court races. In 2010, about 43 percent of spending on TV ads in judicial races came the week before Election Day, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School.

This year, North Carolina’s incumbent conservative judge Paul Newby squeaked by in a heated contest with Sam Ervin IV that saw heavy outside spending.

Both judges participated in the state’s public financing program, which capped spending after awarding each candidate $240,000.

Outside groups not encumbered by limits, poured money into the race on behalf of Newby. Two groups used corporate and out-of-state funds to run nearly a half-million dollars’ worth of ads in the final week alone, including a $50,000 outlay for an ad called “Noise” on Nov. 5, sponsored by the North Carolina Judicial Coalition.

The other pro-Newby group, North Carolina Justice for All, ran an ad on Nov. 1 that asked “can we trust Sam Ervin?”

Justices retained

Three Florida justices easily won bids to keep their jobs Tuesday, and an Iowa justice hung onto his seat on the bench. The races were subjected to massive outside spending on ads and even dueling bus tours.

Eighteen states require appointed Supreme Court justices to periodically face voters in “merit retention elections.” If a majority votes against a judge, the governor appoints new justices from a list of names submitted by a nonpartisan nominating commission.

Florida justices R. Fred Lewis, Barbara Pariente and Peggy Quince will remain on the bench after roughly 67 percent of voters chose to retain them despite a wave of ads paid for by two tea party organizations.

Restore Justice and the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity targeted the justices mainly for their involvement in a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that invalidated a ballot initiative challenging President Barack Obama’s health-care law.

The three justices, who collectively raised more than $1.3 million, received substantial support from Defend Justice from Politics, an outside group which spent roughly $1.5 million on a campaign dedicated to retaining the justices.

Nearly 54 percent of Iowans voted to retain Justice David Wiggins, who survived Republican attacks for his part in a 2009 Supreme Court vote that affirmed same-sex marriage. Two years ago, three of Wiggins’ former colleagues were ousted thanks to a similar campaign waged by conservatives upset with the ruling.

Conservative groups, joined by former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum, collectively spent roughly $450,000 on their “No Wiggins” campaign, which included television ads and a statewide bus tour.

Update, (Nov. 13, 12:00 pm): Democrats won two close races for governor. Montana's Steve Bullock edged out Republican Rick Hill, and in Washington, Jay Inslee narrowly defeated Republican Rob McKenna.

N.C.'s public financing system drowned out by outside spending

2012-12-17T14:53:23-05:00

Thanks to a flood of outside spending, state supreme court races nationwide are awash in tens of millions of dollars’ worth of ads. Just how much is being spent isn’t clear, as many states allow certain types of ads to go unreported.

In North Carolina, one outside group has single-handedly outspent two candidates for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court. The North Carolina Judicial Coalition has unleashed a torrent of ads on behalf of conservative Paul Newby, blanketing the state with a $1.3 million ad buy. Tobacco giant RJ Reynolds and the North Carolina Chamber of Commerce gave a combined $264,000 to the ad campaign.

Both Newby and his opponent, liberal Sam Ervin IV, accepted $240,000 from the state as part of North Carolina’s public financing program — established in 2004 to limit spending and rein in the excesses of special interest money in judicial races.

Unlimited spending by unaffiliated groups has threatened the effectiveness of the program — one of 16 in the nation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The flood of spending was made possible thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010. Unlike candidates, outside spending groups can raise and spend unlimited sums from people, corporations and unions.

“Outside entities can spend as much as they want,” said Kim Strach, of North Carolina’s election board. “Candidates certified in our [public financing] program don’t have that ability.”

Michigan

The Michigan Supreme Court election is the nation’s most expensive judicial race this year. The state has seen millions of dollars in “off-the-books” outside spending before an election that could flip the 4-3 conservative edge on the state’s highest court.

“This is madness,” said Rich Robinson, of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, who says outside spending has reached a “ridiculous level.”

Parties and PACs have reported less than $680,000 in independent expenditures, but that only tells part of the story.

Political parties alone have purchased $10 million in ads on the race for three seats on so-called “issue” ads, which are not reported to the state. The Michigan Campaign Finance Network has been monitoring the ads.

The watchdog group estimates that 75 percent of the spending in this year’s Supreme Court races falls outside of the state’s reporting system.

Seven candidates are vying for two open seats. Another three are battling to serve the remaining two-year term of a retiring justice.

Candidates have raised a combined $2.7 million.

Democratic candidate Bridget Mary McCormack’s four-minute ad featuring the cast of the hit show “The West Wing” went viral in September. McCormack’s sister was a cast member.

One outside group, the D.C.-based nonprofit Judicial Crisis Network, shot back with $1 million-worth of ads attacking McCormack for volunteering to represent suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay. The group does not report its donors.

“Bridget McCormack volunteered to help free a terrorist,” the mother of a slain American soldier says in one ad from the group. “How could you?”

The Michigan Democratic Party ran ads claiming Democrats Connie Kelley, Shelia Johnson and McCormack would “protect children, not criminals.” Another ad from the party claims that Republican incumbents Brian Zahra and Stephen Markman, and challenger Colleen O’Brien “have protected criminals, not kids.”

Alabama

Five Supreme Court seats are open in Alabama, but just one is contested. Former Chief Justice Roy Moore (R) is fighting to win back the job he lost in 2003, when he was removed for refusing to move a Ten Commandments monument from the state Supreme Court building.

His opponent is Birmingham Judge Bob Vance, who entered the race in August after the Democratic Party disqualified its previous nominee for making inflammatory comments about homosexuals.

Despite his late start, Vance has out-raised his better-known Republican opponent more than two-to-one, pulling in nearly $1 million in campaign contributions since joining the race.

One of his biggest contributors has been Alabama Voice of Teachers for Education. According to state campaign finance records, the teachers association PAC gave Vance $100,000 in October.

Alabama law does not impose campaign contribution limits on individuals or PACs.

Since May, Moore has received roughly $370,000 in campaign contributions, much of it from outside the state. Michael Peroutka, a Maryland attorney who ran for president in 2004 as the nominee of the staunchly conservative Constitution Party, has given Moore $30,000 since September.

Moore’s campaign released ads praising the former chief justice for standing “up to the ACLU and liberal judges to preserve our rights and freedoms. Roy Moore knows our liberty is given by God, not government.”

Ohio

Four candidates are competing for two open seats on Ohio’s Republican-dominated Supreme Court, while the court’s lone Democrat fights to retain her 2010 appointment.

Since July, five of the six candidates have collectively raised nearly $2 million.

Supreme Court candidates in Ohio can accept a maximum of $3,450 from individuals and $6,325 from organizations. Political parties can contribute up to $316,250.

Former appeals court Judge William O’Neill has refused to accept campaign contributions in his challenge to Republican incumbent Justice Robert R. Cupp.

O’Neill filed an ethics complaint concerning $6,300 in donations his opponent and another justice, incumbent Terrence O’Donnell, received from FirstEnergy Corp. The Akron, Ohio-based energy company contributed shortly after the judges began hearing arguments in a case involving Ohio Edison, an electric company owned by FirstEnergy.

Weeks after the justices accepted the gifts, Cupp and O’Donnell joined a majority ruling in favor of the company.

O’Neill produced a Web ad in which he asks two kids to count buckets of money while he decries the thousands of dollars Cupp received from doctors, lawyers and utility companies.

“Money and judges don’t mix,” O’Neill says in the three-minute ad.

In late October, Ohio’s Republican Party released a controversial ad stating that as a judge, “Bill O’Neill expressed sympathy for rapists.”

The 15-second ad concerns an appellate court opinion O’Neill wrote in 2000 in which the he overturned a rape conviction.

Cupp joined state Democrats and the Ohio State Bar Association in demanding that the Republican Party pull the ad. But GOP officials have refused to do so.

West Virginia

The race for two open Supreme Court seats in West Virginia features four candidates, one of whom has produced a quirky ad in which he shows viewers the inside of his closet to confirm that there are no skeletons inside.

Incumbent Justice Robin Jean Davis, a Democrat, faces Republican Alan Loughry while Democrat Letitia Chafin squares off against John Yoder, a Republican.

Outside spending has been absent from this Supreme Court election, but the four candidates have spent a combined $1.8 million during the general election campaign.

Loughry’s campaign produced three ads – two of which prominently feature the candidate’s six-year-old son, aptly named Justice.

In one ad, the Republican gives viewers a tour of his house, as he repeatedly notes that his last name is pronounced “LAW-FREE.” At one point, Loughry opens his closet and says, “See? No skeletons.”

Loughry, who has spent nearly $425,000, was the only candidate who intended to run a publicly financed campaign this election season. But his plans were thwarted when the state Supreme Court ruled in September to deny Loughry’s campaign matching state funds under a pilot program.

Retention elections

In Iowa, a conservative outside spending group hopes to oust a justice who supports same-sex marriage. In Florida, justices face the wrath of a pro-business group and a physician who object to President Barack Obama’s health care reform law.

Eighteen states, including Iowa and Florida, require their appointed Supreme Court justices to periodically face voters in what are known as “merit retention elections.”

Voters are asked whether a judge should remain on the bench. If a majority says no, the governor appoints new justices from a list of names submitted by a nonpartisan nominating commission.

Right-wing groups attempt to dislodge justices in Florida, Iowa

2012-11-02T09:48:02-04:00

Conservative outside spending groups have taken to the airwaves in an attempt to kick four Supreme Court justices off the bench in Iowa and Florida for taking positions the groups find objectionable.

In Iowa, one organization, joined by former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum, hopes to oust a justice who supports same-sex marriage. In Florida, justices face the wrath of a pro-business group and a physician who object to President Barack Obama’s health care reform law.

Supporters of the justices have paid for ads and mailers and are defending the judges’ records while accusing their opponents of politicizing the court system.

The campaigns include television ads and dueling bus tours.

Eighteen states, including Iowa and Florida, require their appointed Supreme Court justices to periodically face voters in what are known as “merit retention elections.” Voters are asked whether a judge should remain on the bench. If a majority says no, the governor appoints new justices from a list of names submitted by a nonpartisan nominating commission.

Historically, retention elections generate little political spending and limited voter interest. From 2000 to 2009, retention elections accounted for about 1 percent of campaign spending on all state Supreme Court elections, according to Justice at Stake, a Washington, D.C.-based group critical of judicial elections.

In 2010, conservatives waged a successful campaign to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices who voted the previous year to legalize gay marriage. Spending on retention elections that year jumped to roughly 13 percent of the total spent on all state Supreme Court elections.

The lone remaining justice in Iowa who voted with his ex-colleagues in supporting same-sex marriage has been targeted, as have three Florida justices.

Finding out who is funding the campaigns is often difficult. Spending is often from nonprofit groups that don't disclose their donors. Disclosure laws in the states may be weak or difficult to enforce.

Groups that seek to oust judges don’t always reference specific issues, but instead accuse them of “judicial activism.” Judicial watchdogs worry that the infusion of campaign cash from the groups could actually lead to more activism among judges.

“Everybody has absorbed a new playbook, which is, if you want to change rulings or simply intimidate judges, threaten them through the election process,” says Charles Hall, of Justice at Stake. “So we’re really seeing in the retention states an ethic of ‘Rule my way, or else.’”

Iowa: A fight over gay marriage

Four of Iowa’s seven Supreme Court justices are up for retention this year. But only one — Justice David Wiggins — has become a target for conservative groups still miffed about the court’s controversial 2009 decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

In September, the generically named “Iowans for Freedom,” a project of the conservative nonprofit group The Family Leader, sponsored a “No Wiggins” bus tour. Speakers on the 17-city, four-day road trip accused Wiggins of “judicial activism” and urged voters to reject him at the polls.

High-profile politicians, including Santorum, a devout Catholic and former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, turned out to support the campaign.

“You have an opportunity here in Iowa to continue what you did two years ago,” Santorum said during a tour stop in Des Moines.

Iowans for Freedom is chaired by Bob Vander Plaats, a failed gubernatorial candidate and president of The Family Leader, a “Christ-centered organization” whose goal is to “honor and glorify God — not a political party, not a candidate, and not a program.”

The organization has spent more than $300,000 on its “No Wiggins” campaign, according to campaign disclosure reports.

“We want our courts to be independent,” Vander Plaats says. “A court should never be independent to amend our constitution from the bench.”

Among the other contributors to Iowans for Freedom is CitizenLink, a Colorado-based “family advocacy organization that inspires men and women to live out biblical citizenship that transforms culture,” according to the group’s website.

Campaign finance records show that CitizenLink has contributed a total of $50,000 to Iowans for Freedom.

Patriot Voices, a Western Pennsylvania-based nonprofit organization co-founded by Santorum, has given $25,000 to the campaign against Wiggins. The National Organization for Marriage, a nonprofit group that opposes same-sex marriage, has spent more than $135,000 on television ads attacking Wiggins.

“We must hold David Wiggins accountable for redefining marriage and legislating from the bench,” a narrator says in the group’s first campaign ad, which is co-funded by Iowans for Freedom. “Vote no on Wiggins.”

Wiggins is not campaigning to keep his seat. But that hasn’t stopped his supporters from doing so on his behalf.

In September, the Iowa State Bar Association spent nearly $11,000 for its “Yes Iowa Justice” bus tour designed to counter the attacks on Wiggins and urge voters to keep him on the bench. The five-day tour shadowed the “No Wiggins” tour across much of the state.

In October, the bar association also spent more than $20,000 on radio advertising.

Justice Not Politics Action, a nonprofit group created to counter the anti-Wiggins campaign, has spent more than $225,000 on its “Vote Yes on Retention” campaign.

“Our courts are threatened,” says former Lt. Gov. Sally Pederson, who chairs the group. Voters “don’t like the idea that money is coming from outside interest groups who want to intimidate the courts.”

The group has received much of its funding from Iowa law firms. But its biggest donation came from Human Rights Campaign. In October, the national gay-rights organization gave Justice Not Politics Action $100,000.

Florida’s ‘spending arms race’

The point of contention in the Florida race is Obama’s health-care reform law.

Justices R. Fred Lewis, Barbara Pariente and Peggy Quince voted in 2010 to invalidate a ballot initiative challenging the Affordable Care Act because they determined it contained misleading language. The decision outraged many conservatives, setting the stage for the merit retention effort.

For the first time since the system was created in 1976, the executive committee of the Republican Party of Florida voted unanimously to oppose the justices up for retention.

Leading the charge against them are two tea party groups: Restore Justice 2012, an Orlando-based “527” group chaired by conservative activist Jesse Phillips, and Americans for Prosperity, a 501(c)(4) "social welfare" nonprofit backed by billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch.

“It’s really caused kind of a spending arms race in that state,” said Alicia Bannon, of New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice.

Restore Justice has produced at least three Web ads thus far. In one ad, a handful of young voters describe how Florida is “at a crossroads.”

“Freedom is being reborn,” they say, “but there are dark clouds of opposition gathering.” The ad goes on to discuss the need to make the state Supreme Court a “noble institution and bastion of liberty once again.”

The ad closes showing the images of the three justices up for retention above the buzz words also used in the Iowa campaign: “stop judicial activism.”

“There are lots of voters and lawyers who have said that the Florida justices are not upholding the constitution, and that they’re legislating from the bench,” says Phillips.

Tracing the financial backers of the campaign is difficult.

Restore Justice has spent nearly $12,000 on the retention election, more than $5,000 of which went toward “media production,” according to reports filed with the state. Contribution records show the group only received about $3,000 in donations.

Under Florida law, Restore Justice is considered an “electioneering communications organization.” It is permitted to raise and spend unlimited sums of money as long as it does not tell viewers in its ads to vote for or against a candidate.

Restore Justice didn’t officially register with the state as an electioneering organization until August. Between Jan. 1 and Aug. 12, IRS records show that the group received nearly $70,000 in contributions, almost all of which came from Florida physician Allan Jacob.

In 2010, Jacob gave $15,000 to a political committee headed by the brother of then-state Sen. Alex Diaz de la Portilla. Days after the contribution, the Republican Senate majority leader wrote a letter that helped Jacob’s kidney dialysis company keep a state contract.

In August, state campaign finance records show, Jacob gave $125,000 to Diaz de la Portilla’s political committee, Citizens for Accountable Government. Diaz de la Portilla is currently running for a state House seat.

Jacob could not be reached for comment.

Phillips says Restore Justice is planning “a blitz” on the radio. He estimates that the group will have spent roughly $80,000 by Election Day to help oust the three Florida justices.

Americans for Prosperity released an ad saying the state’s high court “denied our right” to vote against the health care law.

It’s unclear how much money Americans for Prosperity has spent on the Florida Supreme Court race. The organization’s last state campaign finance report was filed in 2009, when the group was listed as an electioneering organization.

“Why they are not currently registered or reporting is unknown,” wrote Chris Cate, a Florida Department of State spokesperson in an email.

Officials from Americans for Prosperity did not return phone calls for comment.

Outside spending has prompted each of the judges to raise their own campaign funds. Collectively, the justices have raised more than $1.3 million this campaign season.

Those fundraising numbers dwarf totals raised by Florida judges over the past decade. Between 2000 and 2009, Florida Supreme Court justices raised a total of just $7,500 for their retention bids, according to Justice at Stake.

The three justices have also been getting help from Defend Justice from Politics, another 527 organization. Like Restore Justice, state records show that Defend Justice is an electioneering group, prohibited from “expressly” telling voters to vote for or against a candidate.

State campaign finance records show the group has spent nearly $1.5 million on its campaign to support the justices, most of which has gone toward advertising. In state filings, the group lists just one contributor: “Defend Justice from Politics.”

“We’re not hiding” the group’s donors, says Neal Roth, a Miami attorney working with the Defend Justice campaign.

Roth says the organization recently filed a report with the IRS that lists all of its contributors, which has yet to be posted online. Roth provided The Center for Public Integrity with a copy of the report, which shows the group has received more than $1.1 million from eight Florida law firms that each gave the campaign at least $100,000.

The group’s report also shows some donations from a handful of organizations outside of Florida, including a $120,000 contribution from America Votes, a liberal political advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.

Defend Justice’s only ad to date, which is being broadcast in major markets across Florida, accuses opponents of “trying to remove three fair and impartial Supreme Court justices so they can replace almost half the court with judges who will let them bend the rules.”

The ad goes on to urge voters to “stand up for our justices against this political power grab.”

The flood of spending from both sides worries watchdogs like Peter Butzin, chair of Common Cause Florida.

“We’re politicizing the system,” he says. “I find it very frightening.”