EDITORIAL: Tighten rules on judges and campaign donors

If a lawyer or litigant funneled money through a middleman to a judge who later presided over his case, it would ordinarily be time to call the prosecutors. But if the money is a contribution to the judge's campaign organization during a race for election, then it's perfectly legal, ethical and customary. That needs to change. It not only creates the appearance of a conflict of interest, it undermines the credibility of the courts as impartial arbiters of the facts and the law.

One proposed reform is to mandate that judges remove themselves from cases where any of the parties had given $1,000 or more to their campaigns. That could help, but it's a bandage. Public campaign financing would be better because it would all but eliminate fundraising. Merit selection would be better still, because judges wouldn't have to run for office.

Most of the state's judges are elected. Except for their own campaigns, they're not allowed to engage in partisan activity, like soliciting contributions for a political party or even buying tickets to political events. But the need to run forces them to temporarily become political animals. They can't personally solicit contributions, but campaign committees do it for them. And while judges aren't supposed to know who gave - and who didn't - that's a difficult requirement to enforce.

Money sways elections, and in judicial races much of it comes from lawyers and others who, on occasion, have matters before the courts. It's a dicey arrangement. hN