Tuesday, July 24, 2001
Page 7
PERSPECTIVES (Column)
Public Financing of Judicial Campaigns Is a Shoddy Idea
ROGER M. GRACE
Public financing of judicial elections is an idea whose time has not come, and never will.
It never will be a sound idea, that is, unless the objective becomes that of harassing sitting members of the bench and subsidizing lawyers’ advertising campaigns.
The concept of taxpayers picking up the tab for judicial campaigns is touted in a report by the American Bar Assn.’s Commission on Public Financing of Judicial Campaigns, released yesterday. The full costs of campaigns should be allotted to candidates who promise not to raise funds from other sources, under the proposal.
The problem with that is that availability of free funds to those who enter judicial races would have the inevitable effect of increasing challenges to sitting judges — including whose performance is exemplary.
Why not run, if the campaign is subsidized by taxpayers?
An attorney who ran against a judge 1.) just might win, like when an unaccomplished lawyer named Patrick Murphy bumped off an incumbent of the Citrus Municipal Court, Abraham Aponte Khan, and 2.) in any event, would get free publicity that would increase the attorney’s name recognition and increase business.
Also, it would be a strong incentive for lawyers who are dissatisfied with rulings of a judge to mount a retaliatory election campaign — like that instituted a few years ago against Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ronald Coen by a lawyer who said he was running because he “wanted the sucker to sweat a little bit.”
Although the ABA commission wants to limit subsidies to “serious candidates,” it is doubtful that standards could be devised whereby the government could award funds to candidates A and B but deny them to C on the ground that C is not a “serious” aspirant. The end result would be that you file yer challenge, you gets yer funds.
Under the ABA commission’s proposal, this would be the message to lawyers:
Step right up, ladies and gentlemen. Get your free money! That’s right — FREE MONEY! All you pay is the filing fee. The campaign is yours, absolutely free! You target the judge — pick one who’s a stinker; pick one with a foreign-sounding name; pick one at random. Plenty of judges to choose from! Get your name in front of the public! Tell the public how fantastic a lawyer you are! Tell them your specialty. Direct them to your web page. Win the election, or win some clients — either way, you can’t lose!
The evil the commission is seeking to combat is the perception that contributions to judicial candidates could entail the buying of future favors in the form of rulings. In California, at least, there is simply no common concept that political donors get preferential treatment in court. There is no pressing need to change the system.
To encourage challenges to judges by offering free funds to candidates would almost certainly result in challenges coming about. A challenged judge does “sweat.” Intense anxiety is natural when one’s job is in jeopardy. And the judge must take the time to campaign — something many jurists are uncomfortable doing.
Far more realistic than the prospect of a judge granting a motion because the lawyer making it was a contributor is the prospect that persons worthy of judgeships would not apply for appointment if there were, every six years, an election free-for-all. Indeed, it would be free for all (all with 10 years of membership in the State Bar) to seek to unseat the judge.
DEMAGOGIC TRIPE — Matthew Cavanaugh, 38, is seeking election to the State Bar Board of Governors. As I’ve mentioned before, he’s never been an officer of a local bar association and has not been a participant — let alone a leader — in State Bar committees or commissions. Taking a cue from political elections, he’s relying on the notion that it’s not qualifications that count the most, but the slickness of phrases and the ability to conjure up hit-’em-in-the-pocketbook issues. Portraying himself as a man of the people, the champion of “ordinary” lawyers, young Mr. Cavanaugh has placed an ad which ran yesterday in a local legal trade paper proclaiming in all caps, white-on-black type:
“THE STATE BAR COULD WORK FOR YOU!”
It starts out by asking:
“Are you tired of struggling to succeed in an increasingly competitive economy, while the ‘bar junkie’ dominated state bar spends your mandatory dues on expensive litigation, ideological crusades, and political confrontation?”
His rallying cry is:
“Ordinary lawyers now finally have a real chance to beat local bar activists in the board of governors election. The bar could then make helping you succeed be its top priority.”
It’s slick, all right. Slick and slimy.
Bereft of qualifications himself for the leadership role he covets, Cavanaugh casts experience in bar affairs in negative light. Those who have been involved in bar activities are termed “bar junkies.” They are “local bar activists” who need to be beaten so that “ordinary” lawyers (in other words, lawyers “like you and me”) can take charge. Heaven forbid we should elect Patricia Lobello-Lamb — who has headed two bar associations, etc., etc. — to the State Bar Board of Governors rather than a newcomer. He would probably have to ask directions to the State Bar office, but that’s good because it shows he hasn’t been a bar junkie...under the reasoning the ad seeks to promote.
As far as the State Bar going off on political and ideological tangents, well, that was a pretty good issue before Keller, so why not garner a few votes by sounding the theme now?
And, most significantly, if Cavanaugh is elected, ordinary lawyers will be helped to succeed in their practices, the ad communicates. This parallels Cavanaugh’s pronouncement in the candidate statement accompanying State Bar ballots that the “chief goal” of the State Bar should be that of “helping lawyers succeed in the modern economy.” The effect that is sought is for every “ordinary” lawyer to ask himself or herself:
“How could we possibly pass by the opportunity to elect Cavanaugh — and thus become prosperous — when Lobello-Lamb has not promised to increase our income by a red cent?”
Cavanaugh’s candidacy is indeed a test of the gullibility of lawyers.
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “demagogue” as “a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.” That describes Cavanaugh.
I would describe Lobello-Lamb with terms such as “able,” “experienced,” and “worthy.” The fact that she has previously committed her time to bar activities is obviously to her credit, and to think of this as a black mark, as Cavanaugh would have it, is ludicrous.
Ballots must be returned by Aug. 17.
‘I AM THE YAFFE’ — In recent columns, I took a look at a Los Angeles Superior Court judge about whom lawyers grumble, David P. Yaffe, known for his “I’m smarter than anyone else” arrogance. If Yaffe were to commit his apparent juridical outlook to writing, candidly and in verse, the result might be something along these lines:
I am The Yaffe, I am so wise.
I eschew parties’ theories; I create a surprise.
Every tentative ruling is of my design.
I interject wisdom. The theories are mine!
I am The Yaffe, and I never err.
What I rule is correct, and consistently fair.
Reconsider? Not me — for I never blunder.
Don’t tell me I do, or I’ll sneer and I’ll thunder.
I am The Yaffe, so sage and so great.
So spare me those motions under 1008.
What I say is the law, of course, is the law.
If cases are contra, a distinction I’ll draw.
I am The Yaffe. My power I treasure.
A groveling lawyer will cause me such pleasure.
Pro pers and young lawyers, they are my prey.
They’re so easy to bully. It just makes my day!
I am The Yaffe, and if I offend,
It troubles me not, for it’s I, in the end
Who determines the outcome, who has all the clout.
I make others quiver when I scowl and I shout.
I am The Yaffe, hold me in awe.
Infallible, brilliant, I have not a flaw.
If an action I’ve taken puts this in doubt,
I’ll alter the record — and who will find out?
Copyright 2001, Metropolitan News Company