Ohio Supreme Court Criticized for Ruling Overwhelmingly In Favor of Campaign Donors

For years, critics have pointed to a notable pattern of the members of the Ohio Supreme Court voting overwhelmingly with campaign donors. One justice, Terrence O’Donnell voted 91 percent of the time with her campaign donors. One Justice complained that campaigning in Ohio made him feel like a “hooker,” pandering before special interests with cases before the Court. This is not unique, as noted below.

Accordingly to the New York Times, justices on the Ohio Supreme Court rule over 70 percent of the time with donors. However, few could claim the overwhelming 91 percent record of Justice O’Donnell.

Even O’Donnell’s own copies have complained about the influence of campaign money. Justice Paul E. Pfeifer has complained that he often feels like a “hooker” and that donors often seek to “buy a vote. Whether they succeed or not, it’s hard to say.”

O’Connor’s voting record is particularly under scrutiny because of the sharp difference in sentencing of white collar prisoners. O’Connor is famous for throwing the book at conventional criminals while favoring white collar criminals.

She has been cited for partisan activities as a Republican. In 1996, O’Connor was charged with illegally soliciting employees for a Republican Christmas fund-raiser. She was given a small fine.

O’Connor has received millions from corporate interests, including White Hat Management magnate David Brennan’s group, Informed Citizens of Ohio. Brennan forked over $2 million for pro-O’Connor TV ads.

Recently, Louisiana, West Virginia, and Texas have also looked into similar patterns of campaign contributions and voting records. Click here and here..

For the full article, click here.

11 thoughts on “Ohio Supreme Court Criticized for Ruling Overwhelmingly In Favor of Campaign Donors”

  1. Reposting from the Louisiana Supreme Court thread:

    “A huge and growing problem for the state judiciary. One of my pet areas of concern.

    Outside interests are increasingly trying to skew the process in their favor; even to the selection of the judges.

    Minnesota had an interesting canon in place that forbid judges running for office to elaborate or even state their positions on various issues. This was challenged by the Republican party and went to the Supreme Court as a first amendment case: Republican Party of Minnesota v White (2002) where the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. This of course politicized the Minnesota process.

    In Missouri, something akin in terms of politicization:


  2. Obama is shocked, simply shocked by Hamas op-ed in his church’s newspaper

    By Israel Insider staff March 23, 2008

    Sen. Barack Obama says that a pro-Hamas op-ed printed in his church’s bulletin was “outrageously wrong.” In an issue dated July 22, 2007, in a section titled “Pastor’s Page,” the Trinity United Church in Chicago reprinted an article by Hamas official Moussa Abu Marzook. The article, which originally appeared as an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, justifies the Palestinian terrorist group’s denial of Israel’s right to exist.


  3. There are always double standards, I grant you that.

    But although this news gladdens you, since obviously you support someone other than Obama, doesn’t your own political operation-detecter go off a little on this?

    Remember when GW ran and oppo-research turned up that AWOL business in Alabama? At that time I was one of the few liberals who were vociferously denouncing the “story” as being irrelevant and slimey. Fat lot of good it did me, as once that kind of horse is let out of the barn, there’s no corralling it again.

    We need to break the cycle somehow.

  4. Deep, funny how anonymous sources are a terrible thing not to be believed when they are outing Democrats and principled people when they reveal GOP wrongdoing.

  5. The more feverish the attacks on Obama from quarters such as these with their anonymous “sources”, the more convinced I am that Obama should and will be our next president.

    The roaches and other pests will always attack the man who is going to clean house.

    I don’t blame you “eoeoeo..” You are a true believer who passes on the talking points and in your own way are trying to do the right thing.

  6. the CEO of a company whose employee is accused of improperly looking at the passport files of presidential candidates is a consultant to the Barack Obama campaign, a source said Saturday.

    John O. Brennan, president and CEO of the Analysis Corp., advises the Illinois Democrat on foreign policy and intelligence issues, the source said.

    Brennan briefed the media on behalf of the campaign this month.

    The executive is a former senior CIA official and former interim director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

    He contributed $2,300 to the Obama campaign in January.

    When asked about the contribution, a State Department official told CNN’s Zain Verjee, “We ethically awarded contracts. Political affiliation is not one of the factors that we check.”

    On Friday, the department revealed that Obama’s passport file was improperly accessed three times this year, and the security of passport files of the two other major presidential candidates — Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain — had also been breached.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/22/passport.files /


Comments are closed.