Nonpartisan groups interested in money spent in judicial elections says the 2014 Supreme Court race in which dark money helped elect Justice Robin Wynne to the Arkansas Supreme Court over Tim Cullen was the first since 2000 in which outside money went into TV ads.
More money is being spent to buy judicial races, often using tough-on-crime as a campaign theme. That's bad for criminal defendants, but the hidden agendas of such advertising is bad news, too. Arkansas is a good example.
When the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the old maxim "money speaks" needed to be in the Constitution and, in fact, was already there hiding in the First Amendment, it took a while for the concept to root in remote Arkansas.
Money talks loudly in judicial races around the country. What's the point of Kochs controlling legislatures if they can't control court review of those laws as well?
Takeaways from the May 20 primary election results (including that few people care enough to vote), problems with the state's new voter ID law and the latest on former Lieutenant Gov. Mark Darr — all covered on this week's podcast.
A nonprofit group that promotes impartial courts has calculated that a shadowy out-of-state group spent at least $318,000 — and probably more — aimed at helping Robin Wynne defeat Tim Cullen in a race for Arkansas Supreme Court. It was a big leap in Arkansas TV spending on a court race. Wynne won.
The New York Times mentions in an editorial the dishonest and underhanded anonymously funded TV campaign being used to defeat Tim Cullen in his race for Arkansas Supreme Court. It's also drawn the unflattering attention of FactCheck.org the respected fact-checking operation.