Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson accepted donations from lawyers whose cases are still pending before the court, a move that has drawn ire from her opponent's campaign.
According to an investigation by the Associated Press, nearly 30 lawyers with cases pending before the Supreme Court contributed more than $30,000 to Abrahamson's campaign since August.
Seamus Flaherty, campaign advisor for Abrahamson's opponent Jefferson County Judge Randy Koschnick, said Friday her acceptance of these donations and failure to disclose them to other parties in the case is shocking.""
""Starting with judicial ethics, judges are supposed to avoid even the appearance of partiality in cases, and the response from her campaign has been cavalier in light of the concerns that these donations raise,"" Flaherty said.
According to Heather Colburn, Abrahamson's campaign manager, donations from lawyers with pending cases are legal and very common, and many lawyers who contribute to Supreme Court races have at one point gone before the Court.
""Campaign contributions are part of the electoral system, and it's not surprising that people who have been before [Abrahamson] respect her and want to be a part of her re-election campaign,"" she said.
Koschnick signed a Clean Campaign Pledge when he announced he was running in November, which includes a promise to return such donations. According to Flaherty, Koschnick has received no donation offers he had to give back.
Wisconsin Democracy Campaign Executive Director Mike McCabe said this issue of donations and conflicts of interest are ""a symptom of the bigger problem that we have with the way Supreme Court elections are run nowadays.""
According to McCabe, Supreme Court candidates could either stay away from financial conflicts, lose control of their campaigns and likely lose the race, or ""enter the money game"" and deal with constant conflict of interest charges.
""Candidates for Supreme Court nowadays are damned if they do, damned if they don't,"" McCabe said. ""This just screams out for reform.""
Judicial candidates are particularly vulnerable to conflict of interest charges, but if they do not accept enough donations, they could be outspent by outside interest groups, according to McCabe.
