State supreme court campaign spending has escalated dramatically in recent decades

Evidence

Yet, not all judicial elections are ill-financed, issueless endorsements of the incumbent. In fact, the cost of running for judicial office- particularly for a seat on a state supreme court-has escalated dramatically in recent years. For example, campaign spending in Alabama in 1986 on two supreme court seats was 237,281; but by 2000, candidate spending for four seats had escalated to 13,104,909. In Pennsylvania in 2015, candidates and interest groups spent $21,000,000 in campaigns At times, special interests have tried to buy influence on a court. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 578

Yet not all judicial elections are ill-financed, issueless endorsements of the incumbent. In fact, the costs of running for judicial office—particularly for a seat on a state supreme court—have escalated dramatically in recent years. For example, campaign spending in Alabama in 1986 on two Supreme Court seats was 237,281; but in 2000, candidate spending for four seats had escalated to 13,104,909. In Michigan in 2000, with three incumbent Republicans seeking reelection, candidates spent 7,058,914; groups interested in the outcome spent another 6 million. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 419

Categorization

• XREF: Relevant to judicial independence debates and the appearance-of-impartiality concerns the course touches on in interpreting law. — connects to: Independent spending may tip narrowly contested judicial elections — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 594; Voter backlash can remove judges who sit on cases involving their benefactors — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 584
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 578; G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 419