Legal Ethics
Big Contributions Alone Don’t Require Recusal, Wis. High Court Says
Posted Oct 30, 2009 6:34 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has rejected proposed rules that would have required automatic recusals if judges received contributions from litigants or law firms above certain thresholds.
Instead, the court in a 4-3 vote adopted judicial conduct rules saying that contributions or endorsements alone can’t force a judge off of a case, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports. The court rejected one petition for a rules change that would have required automatic recusal with $1,000 in donations, and another petition that set the threshold at $10,000, according to the Wisconsin Law Journal.
An editorial in the Capital Journal criticized the court’s action. “The Wisconsin Supreme Court this week had a chance to whittle away at the influence that big money has had on court elections in recent years, but blew it,” the editorial says.
The editorial says adopting contribution caps would have helped fight perceptions that big donations influence judicial rulings. “Justice Annette Ziegler, for instance, only last year wrote an opinion that favored Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce just a year after WMC had spent $2 million on campaign ads favoring her election,” the Capital Journal wrote.
Ziegler was among the four justices who “see no harm in accepting wads of special interest money,” the editorial alleges.
Another justice, Michael Gableman, said the rule adopted by the court "memorializes the First Amendment rights of the people to express their political views."

Comments
AndytheLawyer
Oct 30, 2009 7:07 AM CST
Seems like the entire Wisconsin Supreme Court should have recused itself from this one, since they’re all elected and need all the money they can get for their campaigns.
Oh well—on to the U.S. Supreme Court, who will probably spank them with an “What makes you guys think you’re better than West Virginia”? opinion.
Flag this comment
WilliamBednarz
Oct 31, 2009 4:07 AM CST
They really aren’y serious are they ?.?.?
..
Put the money in my posket I won’t tell anyone - - oops - - I mean in my election fund ????
//
distain - comtempt -.- honest, open ,government -.- let us hear it——-for the no admissiion of guilt - no bid contracts - oversight by the courts——- honest as they are??
Remember it was legal in 1774 - oh that was before the 1776’s tea party
You get what you deserve sitting on your hands -.- and when you stand up they get what they deserve
Just another thought they do not wat you to think
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.