• Home
  • News
  • CEO at Center of Caperton Case Speaks Out

Election Law

CEO at Center of Caperton Case Speaks Out

Posted Jun 12, 2009 4:05 PM CST
By Molly McDonough

Don Blankenship, the chief executive of Massey Energy Co., questions whether the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling this week that a judge he supported should have recused himself will ultimately stifle free speech.

A divided court ruled 5-4 Monday in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company that elected judges should step aside when large campaign contributions create an appearance of bias.

"I hope the Supreme Court's ruling will not silence others from speaking out when change is needed," Blankenship said in a statement published by the Associated Press.

The AP reports that Blankenship explains his $3 million effort to get Chief Justice Brent Benjamin elected to the West Virginia Supreme Court. His primary objective was opposing former Justice Warren McGraw.

"Like millions of other Americans, I contributed my time, my energy, and, yes, my money to oppose a candidate I disagreed with personally and politically," Blankenship is quoted saying. "It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court's ruling is being reported as a matter of corporate influence and judicial review. This is not and was not ever about the company I have served for more than 27 years or the industry I have worked for the majority of my entire life."

Prior coverage:

ABA Journal: "Caperton’s Coal"

ABAJournal.com: "Top Court Hears Judicial Influence Case, Leans Toward Stricter Recusal Standard"

ABAJournal.com: "ABA Among Five Groups Urging High Court to Hear Judicial Recusal Case"

Comments

1.

LMA
Jun 12, 2009 9:00 PM CST

The decision merely said the judge who was elected by $3 million of Blankenship’s money should have recused himself from Blankenship’s case.  There is no sense in which this result conflicts with any free speech rights of Blankenship, unless by free speech he means the right to buy a sitting judge to rule on his own pending case.  .

Flag this comment

2.

B. McLeod
Jun 13, 2009 1:59 AM CST

Bingo.

Flag this comment

3.

AndytheLawyer
Jun 14, 2009 11:14 AM CST

Mr. Blankenship is right, though.  What’s the point of buying justice if it won’t stay bought?

Flag this comment

4.

Peter L. Wanger
Jun 15, 2009 5:02 PM CST

Since Congressional votes have been bought and sold for years, it was not unreasonable for Blankenship to think he could buy a judicial decision. Now its up to the voters to turn out those Senators and Congressmen and Congresswomen who regularly sell their votes to the highest bidder instead of representing the interests of their constituents or the interests of the United States. Until the Supreme Court reverses Buckley v Veleo and declares that a political contribution is not an exercise of free speech, our democracy is in more and more danger.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.