From the Public Justice Website – How Federal Preemption is Hurting and Killing People:
Michelle Nemphos wanted to protect her child. What she found herself in was a little-understood legal fight for her right to a day in court. The Nemphos ...
Attorney Stuart Eppsteiner interviewed by NBC Miami’s “Team 6 Investigation” – discussing Frontload Washer Mold and Odors. He describes their inherent design problems, and how it affects consumers nationwide.
Read more about Stuart Eppsteiner’s NBC ...
E&F CLIENT’S CASE ABOUT SOFTHEAT, SMARTHEAT, DUNLAP AND KAZ HEATING PADS IS CERTIFIED AS CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION!
Have you purchased a heating pad? Did its box disclose that you can burned at any heat setting, that you cannot lie ...
MAYBELLINE “ILLEGAL LENGTH” MASCARA: DOES IT ADD 4 MILLIMETERS TO YOUR LASHES?
Are you one of millions of women who strive to achieve longer lashes? If you purchased Maybelline New York’s “Illegal Length” Mascara and found that it did ...
12555 High Bluff Drive, Suite 155
San Diego, CA 92130
Interest Groups Dominate Spending in Judicial Elections, New Report Shows
Nearly 40 Percent of All Campaign Cash in 2009-10 Came From 10 Organizations
OCT. 27, 2011 – Non-candidate spending in state high court elections nearly doubled as a share of total costs in 2009-10, compared to the previous off-year election, a new report shows.
This spending fueled a flood of non-candidate TV advertising, making this the costliest non-presidential election cycle ever for TV spending in judicial elections.
Among the report’s key findings:
“The New Politics of Judicial Elections 2009-10,” by the Justice at Stake Campaign, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the National Institute on Money in State Politics, is released as the presidential race is heating up — with millions in hidden outside spending pouring in through Super PACs and other outside groups — and shows that million-dollar judicial races are increasingly the norm across the country. The report is available at www.newpoliticsreport.org.
”Too many judges owe their jobs to campaign money hidden from public view,” said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of Justice at Stake. “Americans expect courts to be fair and impartial. They don’t want campaign cash to influence courtroom decisions.”
“The rise in spending by non-candidate groups means that many judicial candidates have become bystanders in their own campaigns, watching the action from the sidelines,” said report co-author Adam Skaggs, of the Brennan Center for Justice. “We expect judges to be impartial and fair. Now with campaign laws weakening, citizens understandably worry that justice is for sale.”
A new poll released today underscored widespread public concern that special-interest money may be undermining the impartiality of elected courts. In a poll of 1,000 voters, 83 percent said that campaign contributions have a “great deal” or “some” influence on a judge’s decisions; 93 percent believe judges should not hear cases involving major financial supporters; and 84 percent believe that all contributions to a judicial candidate should be “quickly disclosed and posted to a web site.”
The New Politics reports have monitored soaring election spending and other threats to the impartiality of state courts since 2000, showing that spending on state high court elections has more than doubled, from $83.3 million in 1990-1999 to $206.9 million in 2000-2009.
The latest report noted that spending in retention elections for judges exploded in 2010, representing 12.7 percent of overall spending, compared to only 1 percent over the entire previous decade. In Iowa’s retention election, three state Supreme Court justices were swept out of office over the court’s same-sex marriage decision. Due to Iowa’s disclosure laws, voters could track the nearly $1 million spent to unseat the justices, but this is not the case in many states. In Wisconsin’s 2011 Supreme Court race, for example, outside groups spent a record amount on TV ads. This surge in secret spending has fundamentally transformed state Supreme Court elections.
The report also concluded that the 2010 elections were followed by dual threats to state courts. These included a “ferocious” attack in legislatures around the country against reforms designed to protect courts from special interests, and a widespread fiscal crisis in many states. The attacks included challenges to merit selection systems, assaults on public financing of judicial elections, and an unprecedented number of legislative threats to impeach state judges.
“As the second decade of the twenty-first century begins, state judiciaries are caught in a vise, squeezed on one hand by interest groups waging an unrelenting war to impose partisan political agendas on the bench and on the other by devastating fiscal pressures,” the report said.
# # #
The Justice at Stake Campaign is a nonpartisan, nonprofit campaign working to keep America’s courts fair and impartial. Justice at Stake and its 50-plus state and national partners educate the public, and work for reforms to keep politics and special interests out of the courtroom—so judges can protect our Constitution, our rights and the Rule of law. For more about Justice at Stake, go to www.justiceatstake.org, or www.gavelgrab.org.
The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law is a nonpartisan public policy and law institute that focuses on fundamental issues of democracy and justice. The Center works on issues including judicial independence, voting rights, campaign finance reform, racial justice in criminal law to Constitutional protection in the fight against terrorism. Part think tank, part public interest law firm, part advocacy group, the Brennan Center combines scholarship, legislative and legal advocacy, and communications to win meaningful, measurable change in the public sector. For more information, visit www.brennancenter.org.
The National Institute on Money in State Politics collects, publishes, and analyzes data on campaign money in state elections. The database dates back to the 1990 election cycle for some states and is comprehensive for all 50 states since the 1999–2000 election cycle. The Institute has compiled a 50-state summary of state supreme court contribution data from 1989 through the present, as well as complete, detailed databases of campaign contributions for all state high-court judicial races beginning with the 2000 elections.
We care about what you think. Please tell us your thoughts by posting your comments, opinions and experiences that can make a difference to others. We are actively growing our community and by sharing your concerns, you can help others with your involvement. Thank you, Stu.Stuart Eppsteiner
“We were a small group of homeowners sharing a common problem – leaking, moldy windows. After the window manufacturer refused to help, we retained Stuart Eppsteiner to pursue legal action. Stuart and his team discovered the causes of the window ... Read More...
“We had problems with the windows in our house. Stuart took charge of things, had experts figure out what was wrong, filed suit and settled the case with a great result. Stuart was available to me during the lawsuit and ... Read More...
“Eppsteiner and Associates exemplify why one works with a boutique law practice specializing in construction law – experienced partners who do the work, looking out for the client’s interests first (and not their own) and taking ownership. Over many years ... Read More...
NOTICE:Eppsteiner & Fiorica Attorneys, LLP is a California Limited Liability Partnership. Our attorneys are licensed to practice law in California and Colorado the firm and its attorneys have attempted to comply with all legal and ethical requirements of those jurisdictions. We have created this internet landing page, and its links to www.eppsteiner.com, for information purposes only. Eppsteiner & Fiorica attorney provide legal advice and practice law for clients in federal courts in the United States and in California and Colorado state courts. No information accessible on or through this landing page or the www.eppsteiner.com website should be construed as legal advice, legal opinions, an endorsement of any matter, or a solicitation for legal business. You should not rely on any content on this landing page or www.eppsteiner.com as legal advice for your particular matter.