Appearances Matter with Money in Politics
How a Supreme Court ruling and the furor at N.C. State show the discomforting role of money in the decision making of public officials

By Damon Circosta
Published: Jun. 16, 2009

RALEIGH - The influence and power of money are on a lot of minds these days. The recent troubles at N.C. State University are but one example of the role money plays in influencing the decisions of public officials. But it isn’t just in the halls of academia or the Executive Mansion where money holds sway.

In these tough economic times the bottom line is at the forefront in almost every aspect of American life. Everything from where our kids go to school to the kind of cheese we eat is determined mostly by how much cash is in our wallets.

Sometimes, for convenience sake, we turn a blind eye to this. We justify a willful ignorance about the role of money in our lives because we don’t want to think of ourselves as merely economic actors. We like to think that we have evolved to loftier notions of righteousness, and can overcome the base considerations that money represents. But in some cases the influence that money has on our decision-making process is hard to ignore.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court was confronted with this very question. What role does money play in our decision making? The case before the court, Caperton v. Massey, had to do with a judge in West Virginia. The judge got elected due largely in part to $3 million spent by a coal company that was counting on him to overturn a $50 million verdict. The judge refused to sit out in the case and asserted that the vast sums spent by a litigant would not bias his ruling.

Perhaps this West Virginia judge had an extra-human ability to decide the case on its merits without this business of huge contributions creeping into his calculus. Maybe this particular judge was able to summon up all of those qualities we so desperately need from our justice system: fairness, impartiality and adherence to the rule of law. If he was able to put aside that one of the parties in this lawsuit spent more than $3 million to get him elected, he is a better man than I am.

Fortunately, N.C. Supreme Court candidates have largely been spared the agonizing question of whether to take contributions from the very interests that might come before them in court one day.  That’s because our state has a first-in-the-nation program of public financing for our highest court, allowing judicial contenders to spend more time with voters and less time dialing for dollars. 

Whether or not the West Virginia judge was actually biased in favor of his contributor isn't the issue. Of more concern is the appearance that justice is for sale. West Virginia and other states would be wise to emulate the North Carolina model of judicial public financing, to avoid even the semblance of impropriety on the part of their judges.

When people hear about a situation like that in West Virginia, it reinforces a notion that there is one set of rules for people with money and another set of rules for people with less. That same thought is running through the minds of many state employees who are being furloughed while watching the news unfold at N.C. State.

It is impossible to tell if the judge in West Virginia ruled for his contributor because the facts and law required it, or if campaign money played a role. Likewise, we won’t ever know if the hiring of Mary Easley was solely a merit-based decision. But in both these situations, we know that when it comes to the role of money in decision making by public officials, appearances matter.