ILNews

IBA creates PAC option for judicial campaign donors

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After a landmark ruling from the nation’s highest court, the Indianapolis Bar Association has adopted an alternative to direct judicial campaign contributions for those interested in donating to candidates vying for the Marion County bench.

The IBA’s governing board unanimously approved a plan last week that gives attorneys an alternative method of supporting judicial campaigns while eliminating direct contact with any individual candidate they might one day appear before. The bar association formed a task force earlier this year to examine how it might address this topic following the Supreme Court of the United States ruling last summer in Caperton v. AT Massey Coal Co., Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2252, where the court examined how judges should recuse themselves when faced with litigants who’d donated to their judicial campaigns.

IBA members formed a Caperton Task Force to study this issue, and last week presented a plan to the board of governors for consideration. The plan calls for the creation of a political action committee named Attorneys for an Impartial Bench (AIB), and would be made up of donations from the county’s practicing bar that want to contribute to Marion Circuit and Superior candidates.

Since the county operates on a slating system for the primary and those individuals’ names are then placed on the November ballot, the AIB money would be distributed equally among all on the ballot following the primary and at least 30 days before the general election. The contributions aren’t earmarked for any specific candidates or any political affiliations, and “minimal” administrative costs would be taken out of the pooled contributions before the donation occurs.

“We believe this is an appropriate response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition of problems associated with campaign contributions to the judiciary,” said IBA president and task force member Christine Hickey, an attorney at Rubin & Levin. “We are attempting to fulfill the Bar’s responsibility to advance the fair and impartial administration of justice. The ongoing mission of the organized bar is to instill public trust and confidence in the judicial system.”

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Anthony Metz, who chaired the task force, said the three goals of the effort are to prevent the appearance that justice is for sale, to promote public confidence in the profession, and to provide attorney members with a choice for judicial campaign contributions.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT