Judges say donations don’t sway legal rulings

Two lawyers appear in court. One donated thousands to the judge’s campaign and the other gave nothing. Will they be treated the same?

Absolutely, say five of the seven elected Luzerne County judges who accepted campaign donations from lawyers.

But getting people to believe that is a problem, said Shira Goodman, co-director of the nonprofit Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts.

There’s a growing public perception in Pennsylvania and nationally that judges can’t simply be impartial with donors who helped them get elected or pay off campaign debt, Goodman said.

“With the courts, perception is reality. Even if that perception is wrong, people don’t think they’re getting a fair shake. That undermines the whole system,” Goodman said.

“You don’t want anyone to say, ‘I wonder if my lawyer gave money to the judge.’ ”

Campaign donations from lawyers are permitted, but the issue is attracting attention locally because several county judge candidates say they’ll avoid any question of preferential treatment by refusing all contributions from the legal community.

The county court’s kickback and theft scandals involving two former judges and the former court administrator also have put the actions of all judges in the limelight.

All seven elected Luzerne County judges have accepted campaign donations from lawyers and law firms.

Judge David Lupas, who received $128,425 in donations from lawyers, or 38 percent of the $337,326 in outside contributions for his 2007 race, said donors are irrelevant because he bases all decisions on the evidence and law.

Lupas said he hasn’t looked at his campaign finance reports since the election.

Lawyers are historically donors to campaigns because they know the candidates and their abilities, Lupas asserted.

Judge Michael Toole, who ran in 2003, received $116,266 in lawyer contributions, or about 41 percent of the $280,000 in outside donations. Toole did not respond to several requests for comment.

The other four judges who spoke on the topic – Chester Muroski, Hugh Mundy, Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. and Thomas Burke – also say they’ve never allowed contributions to influence their actions on the bench.

Muroski, who received $13,700 in contributions from lawyers in his 2001 retention campaign, said lawyer donations were not controversial in the past, in part because campaigns overall were cheaper.

“When I first ran in 1981, I think my total expenditures for the primary and general were $35,000,” Muroski said.

Non-retention county judge campaigns now average several hundred thousand dollars. Muroski said he won’t have to wrestle with the issue because he’s retiring at the end of the year.

“Everything is different now. The degree of hostility of the electorate towards lawyers in general makes it a very serious decision for judicial candidates as to whether or not they are going to accept contributions from lawyers and, if so, if the candidate is going to put a limit on those contributions,” Muroski said.

Mundy, who received $29,250 in lawyer contributions for his 2001 retention campaign, said elections are different today. His term ends in 2011, when he will be 71.

“It would be unfair to compare my campaign with current campaigns because the economics of campaigns have changed, the structure of the market has changed and the cost of advertising has changed considerably from the time I ran,” Mundy said.

Judge Joseph Augello, who also ran for retention in 2001, received $31,000 in overall donations – about $5,000 from lawyers. He could not be reached for comment.

Olszewski and Burke confirmed that they received lawyer donations when they ran for election in 1999. Their campaign finance reports weren’t in the state’s online database because they are older.

Olszewski and Burke are both up for retention this year, and neither has decided whether to accept campaign contributions from lawyers.

Lawyer donations have become standard in judicial campaigns because lawyers know the candidates, Olszewski said. “My feeling is that lawyers are the best judges of their colleagues. They’re in courtrooms and have worked with us and know us,” Olszewski said. “Lawyers and their clients benefit from having the best lawyers on the bench.”

Burke echoed that belief, saying lawyers understand the importance of electing judges who know the law and “will preside fairly and competently over a proceeding.”

“Lawyer contributions in and of themselves to a judge’s campaign finance committee should not be viewed as improper,” Burke said.

“If we reach the point where the perception is that lawyer contributions – or any outside contributions to judicial campaigns – pose an unfair advantage that will tilt the level playing field in favor of one side or another, then we likely have to consider alternatives to the present system,” he said.

That could include merit selection of judges or changes in campaign financing, including public financing or limiting campaign contributions, he said.

Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts is pushing for a merit selection plan to eliminate the need for judicial candidates to raise campaign funds.

The organization supports creation of a bipartisan nominating committee that would choose five qualified candidates.

The governor would choose a nominee, and the Senate would have to confirm the selection. After four years, voters would decide whether to retain the appointed judge.