Wednesday, Oct. 30, 1996 | 11:59 a.m.
Las Vegas attorney Kenneth Hall and deputy state attorney general Tim Terry of Carson City are part of a rare breed.
They're candidates for judicial office who refuse to accept campaign contributions from fellow attorneys.
"I don't want any attorney thinking that if they gave money to my campaign that I'm going to render a decision for them," said Hall, a candidate for Nevada Supreme Court Seat B. "Sometimes an attorney, when he contributes, has an expectation that he'll get something if he contributes. Some feel that maybe if they contribute a lot they'll get special consideration."
Through mid-October, attorneys and their law firms contributed at least $84,342 to the two Nevada Supreme Court contests, and at least $69,410 to the seven contested Clark County District Court races. That doesn't even include the vast majority of contributions of $500 or less, none of which are required to be disclosed by donor.
Nevada is one of only five states that allow judicial candidates to directly solicit money for campaigns. Most other states that elect judges have adopted an American Bar Association recommendation requiring candidates for the bench to have a separate committee handle their campaign contributions.
Some experts believe Nevada is inviting scandal by allowing judicial candidates to get involved in fund-raising. One is law professor Patrick McFadden of Loyola University's School of Law in Chicago, author of the book "Electing Justice."
"It's a scandal waiting to happen," McFadden said. "It's a source of trouble you're inviting for yourself that other states avoid."
Another like-minded academician is Felix Stumpf, project consultant for the National Judicial College in Reno and former dean of the now-defunct Old College School of Law, also in Reno. Stumpf, who has authored a handbook on judicial elections, also believes judicial candidates ought to be insulated from their contributors.
"You cannot completely wash contributions out of your mind," Stumpf said of judges. "You would hope people would rise and be above that influence. Many lawyers will give contributions to both candidates who are running to make sure whoever wins the election is favorably impressed."
Las Vegas attorney Ed Bernstein, who has contributed to several judicial races, defends such contributions.
"Lawyers are in a better position than other voters to determine who (among judges) does a good job," he said.
He said judges occasionally excuse themselves from cases because of campaign contributions. But he added he knows of no case locally where a judge made a ruling to benefit a political supporter.
"Ultimately you have to rely on the judge to make an impartial decision," Bernstein said.
Attorney contributions have become a key issue between Terry and incumbent Carson City District Judge Michael Fondi. Terry, who has spent about $25,000 of his own money to run against Fondi, refuses to accept money from lawyers.
"I believe it gives the appearance that someone is buying judges," Terry said. "Judges are the last people you want on Earth accepting money. People don't give large amounts of money to political campaigns out of the goodness of their hearts."
But Fondi, facing an electoral opponent for the first time in his 19 years on the bench, agrees with Bernstein. Fondi said attorneys ought to be able to contribute to judicial campaigns, particularly because of their knowledge of the legal system.
"There are no canons of ethics or state statutes that define who a judicial candidate can get campaign contributions from," Fondi said.
Fondi said the acceptance of contributions from lawyers presents no problem as long as the judge discloses such potential conflicts. He also said lawyers have the right to have a case transferred if they believe the judge is biased.
Hall, who opposes Clark County District Judge Bill Maupin, advocates a system whereby a contributor can earmark campaign money to a specific judge through a "blind" fund that would prevent judicial candidates from knowing the sources of their contributions.
"That means you don't know if the guy standing in front of you (in court) gave a lot of money or no money at all," Hall said. "If nothing else, it would remove the appearance of impropriety."
A system similar to that described by Hall was tried in Dade County, Florida, but was dismantled in an appellate court ruling. McFadden said that Florida at the time had a campaign contribution limit of $1,000 from an individual source. He said the court determined that the blind fund was a single source that could give no more than $1,000 to a candidate, making it virtually useless.
McFadden said another problem with such proposals is that they could dry up sources of campaign money because most contributors want candidates to know about their donations. But he said he supports "anything that insulates judges from knowing who their campaign contributors are."
Public financing through a voluntary check-off system similar to the funding for presidential campaigns is used in Wisconsin and Montana supreme court races. But McFadden said such financing is becoming less popular among voters.
Common Cause of Nevada is a government watchdog group fighting for campaign finance reform. But its executive director, Ellen Nelson, said her group would oppose any proposal that prevents a candidate from knowing the source of a contribution. She said that amounts to the type of "soft money" contributions Common Cause and others believe have corrupted the political system.
Nelson said she is concerned, however, about the "bundling" of money whereby a law firm gets all of its attorneys to contribute to a candidate to skirt limitations on company donations. Under Nevada law, corporations can give up to $20,000 and individuals can donate up to $10,000 per candidate for statewide races.
State Sen. Mark James, R-Las Vegas, an attorney, believes the best solution is to do away with the election of judges. Instead, he advocates the so-called Missouri Plan, in which judges are appointed by the governor and then subject to retention elections when their terms expire.
"We need to do something to clean up the judicial races," James said. "I don't think judges should run in contested elections the same as other politicians. Judges are supposed to be trained people who will rule fairly on specific cases."
archive
